Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT! 



if 



J to. , 



CLOSED 
STACKS 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not to be taken Irom the Library 
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



t flAY f 199/? SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRABY 

3 1223 03476 4192 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/3minutes1992sanf 



. SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS OEPT. 

FEB 1 2 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUDUC ' '^RARY 



January 6, 1992 
Special Meeting 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 



COMMISSIONERS 



PATRICK A. MURPHY 
PRESIDENT 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
VICE PRESIDENT 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 
Airports Commission 

January 6, 1992 
Special Meeting 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

December 3, 1991 92-0001 3 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Mi 11 brae, So. San Francisco & 
Pacifica Home Insulation Funding 

- FY91 & 92 92-0002 3 

2. Host Food & Beverage Lease Option 

- Amended Modification 92-0003 4 

3. Host South Terminal Principal 
Concession Lease - Replacement 

Subtenant & Sublease Approval 92-0004 4 

4. Airport Requirement to Secure 
4.72 Acres of Plot 40 Under Lease 

to American Airlines, Inc. 92-0005 4 

5. Golf Shop Lease Rebid 92-0006 4 

6. Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid 
Conference: Hosiery & Related 

Gifts Shop Lease 92-0007 4 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Mod. No. 1 to Agreements with 
HMH Inc. , Towill Inc. & West 
Coast Survey, Inc. to Extend 
Contracts for Phase 2 Land 

Survey Services 92-0008 

8. Declaration of Emergency - 
Contract 3104 - Emergency Terminal 
Replacement - Station M 92-0009 

9. Bid Call - Contract 3067 - Traffic 
Signal Mod. at McDonnell Road 

at UAL/Lot CC Exits 92-0010 



a SF: ECOI I 

4.1 SF^ 



10. Retirement Resolution: 

Charles McCusker 92-0011 5 

11. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 92-0012 5 



NEW BUSINESS: 

CORRESPONDENCE: 

ADJOURNMENT: 



Minutes, January 6, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

January 6, 1992 
Special Meeting 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Absent: Sharon B. Duval 1 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of December 3, 1991 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0001 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Items 1 through 6 were adopted unanimously. 

1 . Mi librae, South San Francisco and Pacifica Home Insulation Funding - 
FY91 and FY92 

No. 92-0002 To provide the approvals for budgeting 

and disbursement of 20% local share 
home Insulation funding for the cities 
of Mi librae ($270,000.00), South San 
Francisco ($430,000.00) and Pacifica 
($145,000.00). A total of $845,000.00. 



Minutes Janua-y 6, 1992, Page 3 



2. Host Food and Beverage Lease Option - Amended Modification 

No. 92-0003 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance informed 
the Commission that speakers at the Finance Committee meeting 
included those individuals who had addressed the Airports Commission 
on this matter. The only individuals who spoke against the option 
were Mary Yi and Roland Quan. 



Host South Terminal Principal Concession Lease - Replacement 
Subtenant and Sublease Approval 

No. 92-0004 Resolution approving replacement 

subtenant and sublease under Host's 
South Terminal Principal Concession 
Lease. 



4. Airport Requirement to Secure 4.72 Acres of Plot 40 Under Lease to 
American Airlines, Inc . 

No. 92-0005 Recommendation to approve acquisition 

of 4.72 acres of Plot 40 from American 
Airlines, Inc. for development of new 
fire station. 



Golf Shop Lease Rebid 

No. 92-0006 Resolution authorizing staff to rebid 

the Golf Shop Lease. 

Ms. Gittens informed the Commission that there had been no bidders 
the first time this lease was put out to bid so the small business 
set aside was eliminated and the range of product offerings was 
broadened. 



Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference : 
Hosiery and Related Gifts Shop Lease 

No. 92-0007 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 7 through 12 were adopted unanimously. 

7. Modification No. 1 to Agreements with HMH Inc.. Tow 1 11 Inc., and Nest 
Coast Survey, Inc. to Extend Contracts for Phase 2 Land Survey 
Services 

No. 92-0008 Resolution approving one-year 

extension of contracts to complete all 
topographical surveys for future 
development under the Airport Master 
Plan. Budget for each contract to 
complete the final phase: $100,000. 

Minutes, January 6. 1992, Page 4 



Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3104 : 
Emergency Terminal Replacement - Station M 

No. 92-0009 Ratification of the emergency 

declaration by the President of the 
Commission and authorization for 
immediate repairs. 



Bid Call - Contract No. 3067 : 

Traffic Signal Modification at McDonnell Road at UAL/Lot 'CC Exits 

No. 92-0010 Adopt resolution approving the scope, 

budget and schedule and authorizing 
the Director to call for bid. 



10. Retirement Resolution: Charles McCusker 
No. 92-0011 



1 1 . Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 92-0012 Resolution in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



G. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 

H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 



I. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:13 AM in order to go into closed session. 



Jeian Caramatti 
Cdmmi ssion Secretary 



'"ir.t^s .dnuaiy 6, )92 , Page 5 



_SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



FEBRUARY 18, 1992 



I ■ 1992 
san r 

PUBLIC 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 










of the Minutes 










Airports Commission 










February 18, 1992 






CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




RESOLUTION 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 




2 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




2 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 







Regular meeting of 

February 4, 1992 92-0028 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Approval of FY 1992/93 Budget 92-0029 



AMPCO Parking Agreement - 
Exercise Option 



92-0030 



2 
2 

2-3 
3 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



3. 


Retirement Resolutions: 






Santos Ancheta 92-0031 






John House 92-0032 






Pedro Gonzales 92-0033 






Deo Dutt 92-0034 






Conrad Fider 92-0035 






You-Bong Louie 92-0036 






Tommie Evans 92-0037 






Joel Babbs 92-0038 






Manley Bell 92-0039 






Chris Rogers 92-0040 






Cris Corpuz 92-0041 






Carlos Baltodano 92-0042 


3 


4. 


Retirement Resolution: 






Henry "Bud" Bostwick, Jr. 92-0043 


3 


5. 


Declaration of Emergency - Contract 
3126 - Emergency Water Line Repair 






- McDonnell Road & R-6 92-0044 


3 




NEW BUSINESS: 
CORRESPONDENCE: 


4 
4 



CLOSED SESSION: 

Settlement Julia Zaldovar 



Aj IOIjRNMLNT 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

February 18, 1992 

CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattlson, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanplerre 
James K. Ho 

Absent: Sharon B. Duval 1 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 1992 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0028 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were adopted unanimously. 

1. Approval of the Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget 

No. 92-0029 Resolution approving the proposed 

Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget In the 
amount of $199,222,168. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director told the Commission that the Airline 
Affairs Committee sent a letter without comment on the budget. The 
letter did indicate, however, that the Committee will have comments 
on capital projects in the future. 

Commissioner Mattison asked about the access control program. 



■tes, February 18. 1992. Page 2 



Mr. Turpen responded that there is a Federal mandate to require 
access control systems at selected airports. The contract for 
$1 .2-mi 1 1 ion will provide access control points at all points of 
entry. The Airport currently has palm reader identification cards in 
place in a vast majority of areas at the Airport. 

Commissioner Mattison asked about personnel. 

Mr. Turpen responded that 10 communications operators will be hired. 

Commissioner Mattison said that a lot of time was spent on the garage 
bid. It would be interesting to take a look at what makes this tick 
and how efficiently service Is being provided by the operator. That 
information could be used the next time the garage is bid. Staff 
could look at different ways of arranging for the serivces. 



AMPCO Parking Agreement - Exercise Option 

No. 92-0030 Resolution exercising the first option 

of AMPCO' s Operating Agreement for 
Public Automobile Parking Facilities. 

Mr. Turpen said that this initiates the Prop J process we are 
required to perform under the Charter. He said that AMPCO has done 
an excellent job and he is pleased with their performance. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 3 through 5 were adopted unanimously. 

3. Retirement Resolutions 

No. 92-0031 thru 92-0042 Santos Ancheta Tommie Evans 

John House Joel Babbs 

Pedro Gonzales Manley Bell 

Deo Dutt Chris Rogers 

Conrad Fider Cris Corpuz 

You-Bong Louie Carlos Baltodano 



4. Retirement Resolution for Mr. Henry "Bud" Bostwick, Jr . 
No. 92-0043 



Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3126 
Emergency Water Line Repair - McDonnell Road and R-6 

No. 92-0044 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Airports Commission 
in declaring an emergency and 
authorizing the necessary repair. 



M ; nutes February 18, 1992, Page 3 



G. NEW BUSINESS: 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that she will be attending a meeting of 
the Coalition of Economic Equity at 10:00 AM this morning to discuss the 
Host option. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session pursuant to Government 
Code Section 54956.9(a) for the purpose of discussing pending litigation 
entitled Julia Zaldovar v. City and County of San Francisco, et al , San 
Mateo Superior Court No. 333-618. 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission, the 
meeting adjourned at 9:10 AM to go into closed session. 



i.n Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes. February 18, 1992, Page 4 



san francisco 
Airports commission 




minutes 



ffl \ 9 1991 



larch 10, 1992 
Special Meeting 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 










of the Minutes 










Airports Commission 










March 10, 1992 










Special Meeting 






CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




RESOLUTION 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

February 18, 1992 No. 92-0047 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Award Sale of Second Series 
Refunding Bonds, Issue 1: 

Establish Terms & Interest Rates 

Pursuant to Competitive Bid & 

Award Sale of Second Series 

Refunding Bonds, Issue 1 92-0048 4 

2. Revisions to Five Year Capital 

Projects Plan 92-0049 4 

3. Award Contract 1960B - Electrical 
Improvements, Replace Cables 

12MTR-1 & 12MTS-1 92-0050 4-5 

4. Award Contract for Design & 
Programming of Air Traffic 

Monitoring System 92-0051 5 

5. S.F. Foreign Flag Carriers' Request 
for Conceptual Approval for 

Reimbursement 92-0052 5 

6. Pre-Bid Conf. - Public Pay 

Telephone Agreement 92-0053 5 

G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Retirement Resolutions: 92-0054 

thru 

92-0092 5 

8. Mod. of Professional Services 
Contract - Law Enforcement 

Psychological Services, Inc. 92-0093 6 



9. Mod. No. 4 to Lease & Use 

Agreement - American Airlines 92-0094 

10. Award of Contract 3067 - Traffic 
Signal Modification at McDonnell 
Road 

11 . Bid Call - Contract 2333R - 
Airport Maintenance Base - Replace- 
ment of Security Gates A & B 92-0096 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

Travel/Training: Airport 

Ground Transportation Assn. 92-0097 6 

Free Speech Booth 6-7 

I. C0RESP0NDENCE: 7 

J. ADJOURNMENT: 7 



Minutes, March 10, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

March 10, 1992 
Special Meeting 

CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
2:03 P.M. in Room 2C, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 

L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Sharon B. Duval 1 
James K. Ho 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 18, 1992 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0047 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution nos. 
92-0045 regarding the settlement of 
litigation entitled Samuel Soares in 
the amount of $10,000; and 92-0046 
regarding the settlement of litigation 
entitled Julia Zaldlvar In the amount 
of $23,000 at the closed session of 
February 18, 1992. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes. March 10, 1992, Page 3 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item Nos. 1 through 6 were adopted unanimously. 

1 . Awarding the Sale of the Second Series Refunding Bonds, Issue 1 

No. 92-0048 Establishes terms and interest rates 

of the Second Series Refunding Bonds, 
Issue 1 pursuant to the results of the 
competitive bid; and, awards sale of 
the Second Series Refunding Bonds, 
Issue 1 . 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance told the 
Commission that the bond refinancing had sold well. She said that of 
the four bidders First Boston was the apparent winning bidder at a 
true interest cost of 6.3846X. The Commission saved $2-mi 1 1 ion over 
its budgeted estimate which had a posited 6.51% interest rate. She 
acknowledged and thanked the fine efforts of Orrick, Herrington & 
Sutcl iffe/Pamela Jue, bond counsel, Lazard Freres/Grisby Brandford, 
the financial advisors and John Brown Company, the feasibility 
consultant. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that this would indicate that the road 
show was a worthwhile endeavor. 



Revisions to the Five-Year Capital Projects Plan 

No. 92-0049 

Commissioner Mattison observed that this was a lengthy report and 
some Commissioners may have questions on particular projects, 
especially when there are changes. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if there was any urgency of action. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there was not. The Commission can take a 
little more time to digest this and can can move the item by 
exception. He said that the airlines have rejected these projects. 

Commission Murphy suggested doing it by exception. 

Commissioner Mattison asked about the fiber optics project. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff is looking at that project. 

Commissioner Murphy asked why the airlines were objecting. 

Ms. Gittens responded that they were not objecting, rather they had 
asked for additional information. 

Mr. Turpen said that future revisions to the Five Year Capital Plan 
will have a "by exception" section showing the differences from the 
previously approved Commission report and reasons for the differences 
in either project, type, scope or dollar amount. 



3. Award of Contract No. 1960B 

Electrical Improvements, Replacement of Cables 12MTR-1 and 12MTS-1 

No. 92-0050 Resolution awarding Contract No. 

1960B, Electrical Improvements, 



Minutes, March 10, 1992, Page 4 






Replacement of Cables 12MTR-1 and 
12MTS-1 to Clyde G. Steagall, Inc. in 
the amount of $588,590. 



Award of Contract for the Design and Programming of the Air Traffic 
Monitoring System 



No. 92-0051 



Resolution authorizing a contract 
award to Integrated Business 
Solutions, Inc., at a cost estimated 
$81,180. 



San Francisco Foreign Flag Carriers' Request for Conceptual Approval 
for Reimbursement 



No. 92-0052 



San Francisco Foreign Flag Carriers' 
request for conceptual approval for 
reimbursement for unamortized 
improvements associated with upgrade 
of baggage system in International 
Terminal . 



Authorization to Conduct a Pre-Bid Conference 
Public Pay Telephone Agreement 

No. 92-0053 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items nos. 7 through 9 and no. 11 were adopted unanimously. Item no. 10 
was put over. 

7. Retirement Resolutions : 

Nos. 92-0054 thru 92-0092 



Nita Adra 
Don Anderson 
Lorean Anthony 
John Barrett 
Ben Blea 
Tom Brunner 
Barbara Burton 
Johnson Chow 
Sue Wen Chow 
Marilyn Christensen 
Al ipio Criste 
Leo Del Grande 
Richard Fay 



Robert Flahavan 
Raymond Foppiano 
Lucian Freire 
Leon Guy 

Elizabeth Joiner 
George Kelly 
George Kohut 
Don Lavezzo 
E. Ching Lee 
Tony Lopez 
George Maggiora 
James Mori no 
John Mul len 



Edward Murray 
Herman Nakamoto 
Pablo Narag 
Jerry 0' Rourke 
Robert Rasmussen 
Maria Romero 
Encar Sanchez 
Gloria Schneider 
Charles Searle 
John Stainton 
Joseph Vella 
James Won 



Mr. Turpen explained that these individuals are taking advantage of 
the early retirement offer passed by the voters in the last 
election. He said that these employees will be missed and expressed 
his concern that the Airport maintain a level of standards. 



Minutes, March 10, 1992, Page 5 



8. Modification of Professional Services Contract 

No. 92-0093 Modification to add $50,000 to existing 

professional services contract for Law 
Enforcement Psychological Services, Inc., 
for psychological screening of applicants 
for Airport safety and security positions, 



9. Modification No. 4 to Lease and Use Agreement - American Airlines, 
Inc. 

No. 92-0094 Resolution modifying American Airlines, 

Inc., Lease and Use Agreement No. 82-0111 
relinquishing certain premises in the North 
Terminal Building back to the City. 



Item No. 10 was put over. 

10. Award of Contract 3067 

Traffic Signal Modification at McDonnell Road 

Resolution awarding Airport Contract No. 
3067, Traffic Signal Modification at 
McDonnell Road to ARC Electric Company in 
the amount of $77,000.00. 



11. Bid Call - Contract No. 2333R 

Airport Maintenance Base - Replacement of Security Gates A and B 

No. 92-0096 Resolution approving the scope, budget and 

schedule for Contract No. 2333R and 
authorizing the Director of Airports to call 
for bids when ready. 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

Commissioner Murhy introduced a resolution authorizing travel for Capt. 
Frank 0'Malley to attend a Ground Transportation Association Meeting in 
Arizona. 

The Commission unanimously approved the request. 

No. 92-0097 



Mr. Reuben Davis told the Commission that passengers are being harrassed 
by occupants of the free speech booth. He said that he complained to Mr. 
Garibaldi who told him that free speech was a First Amendment right. 

Mr. Reuben said that this is a disgrace. He has drafted a petition and 
spoken with airlines and concessionaires who would like to have this 
practice stopped. He said that the District Attorney of San Mateo County 
told him that he would like to see it stopped as well but it is an 
Airport-sanctioned activity. 



Minutes, March 10, 1992, Page 6 



Commissioner Murphy said that the Airport has attempted to stop them in 
the past. Perhaps it is time to take a fresh look at it. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that the Supreme Court is currently looking at whether 
or not airports are public forums. 

Mr. Davis said that he would like a permit to conduct a survey at the 
Airport. 

Commissioner Murphy said that the Airport will take a fresh look at this 
problem. He said that he has run the gauntlet at LAX and that he prefers 
to see them in booths. 

Mr. Davis asked the Airport to stop the practice. 

Commissioner Murphy said that at the moment the Airport cannot do that. 
The courts are presently looking at airports as public facilities. 

Mr. Davis asked for permission to circulate a petition at the Airport. 

Commissioner Murphy said that that request must be given to the Director. 
The Commission has no authority to grant such permission. 

Mr. Turpen said that he would be pleased to include such questions in the 
survey. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM to go into closed session in accordance with 
Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act pertaining to anticipated litigation. 



>an Caramatti 
imission Secretary 



Minutes, March 10, 199?. Page 7 



x ^AN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



APRIL 7, 1992 



DEPO! 



ITEJVJ 



MaY 7^92 

RANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 
JAMES K. HO 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










April 7, 1992 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 



c. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Special meeting of 
March 10, 1992 



92-0100 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

Retirement Resolutions: 
Donald J. Garibaldi 
Jason Yuen 



92-0098 
92-0099 



3-4 
4 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 
Water Quality Control Board 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Authorization for Award of the 
Automated Teller Machines 

Modification of Agreement with 
South San Francisco 

PG&E/A1rport Natural Gas 
Vehicle Project 

Authorization to Receive Bids - 
South Terminal Shoeshlne Stands 
Lease 

Authorization to Accept Bids: 
Lingerie & Haberdashery Shop 

Item was removed from calendar 



Request for Conceptual Approval 
for Reimbursement of Unamortized 
Improvements 92-0106 



92-0101 


5 


92-0102 


5 


92-0103 


6-7 


92-0104 


7 


92-0105 


7 




7 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

10. Retirement Resolutions: 92-0107 

thru 

92-0116 7 

11. Award of Contract 3063 - Emergency 

Pavement Repair - 1992 92-0117 8 

12. Award of Contract 3067 - Traffic 
Signal Modification at McDonnell 

Road 92-0118 8 

13. Contract 3126 - Budget Increase - 
Emergency Water Main Repair - 

McDonnell Road & R-6 92-0119 8 

14. Termination of Contract 2299R - 
North Terminal Basement Ventlllatlon 





& Drainage Improvement 




8 


15. 


Bid Call - Contract 3124 - Runway 
Rubber Removal - 1992-93 92-0120 


8 


16. 


Reimbursement to Delta for B/A C 
Security Checkpoint Expansion 


92-0121 


8 


17. 


International & North Terminal 
Cigarette Vending Lease - First 
Option 


92-0122 


8-9 


18. 


Medical Clinic 


92-0123 


9 


19. 


Resolution Ratifying Personnel 
Actions 


92-0124 


9 



20. Contract with the Corporation of 
Fine Arts Museums, S.F. - 
$96,000 92-0125 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

21. New Bayview Committee 9 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 9 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 

Pending Litigation - 

SF0 Airporter 3 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 10 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 7, 1992 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. In Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattlson, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanplerre 
James K. Ho 

Absent: Sharon B. Duval 1 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of March 10, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0100 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go Into closed session In accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9 to discuss to pending litigation with SFO 
Alrporter. 

The Commission recessed Its meeting at 9:02 AM and reconvened at 9:40 AM. 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The resolutions for Item No. 1 were adopted unanimously. 

1 . Retirement Resolutions 

No. 92-0098 Donald J. Garibaldi 

No. 92-0099 Jason Yuen 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Oirector asked Don Garibaldi to step 
forward. Mr. Turpen read the resolution before the Commission in 
honor of Mr. Garibaldi's retirement. 

Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 3 



Commissioner Murphy said that 1n the four years he has been on the 
Commission he has come to appreciate the quality of legal advice and 
professional excellence that Don has brought to the Airport. Don has 
been a tremendous help to him on some very complex Issues. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that his years at the Airport were a lot of fun. 
He thinks he has been credited for a lot of the work that was done by 
current team members and past legal team members. He assured the 
Commission that the legal team In place 1s capable of carrying out 
any of the legal matters for the Commission and staff. He thanked 
everyone for their cooperation and support during his years at the 
Airport. 

Mr. Turpen asked Jason Yuen to step forward. Mr. Turpen read the 
resolution before the Commission 1n honor of Mr. Yuen's retirement. 

Commissioner Murphy said that Mr. Yuen has been an outstanding help 
to the Commission as evidenced by the fact that Mr. Turpen gets Into 
more legal trouble than he gets into planning trouble. He looks 
forward to working with him in the future. 

Mr. Yuen echoed Mr. Garibaldi's comments. He asked that a final 
"Whereas" clause be added to his resolution stating that "The only 
reason Jason Yuen was able to do all these good things mentioned 
above was because he was nothing more than a double-sided mirror of 
the San Francisco International Airport, reflecting on one side the 
support and guidance of the Airports Commission and the Director of 
Airports, while on the other side reflecting the dedication and 
competency of his immediate staff." Mr. Yuen thanked the Commission 
for 24 wonderful years. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Water Quality Control Board 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director of Facilities Operations & 
Maintenance told the Commission that he Is making progress with the 
Water Quality Control Board. They are In the process of discussing 
with them the development of a project In lieu of a fine. Such a 
project would make our system not only safer but would enhance the 
protection of the Bay. This matter was to be heard on April 15 but 
due to the progress being made, the Executive Director will recommend 
to his Board that this item be continued to allow the Airport more 
time to work with the Regional Water Board to develop this project. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos. 3 through 7 and 9 were adopted unanimously. Item No. 8 was 

removed from the calendar. 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 4 



Authorization for Award of the Automated Teller Machines Lease 

No. 92-0101 Resolution approving award of the 

Automated Teller Machines Lease to 
American Express Travel Related 
Services, Inc. 



Commissioner Mattlson was recused from voting on Item No. 4. 

4. Modification of Agreement with South San Francisco 

No. 92-0102 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airports Commission developed an agreement 
with So. San Francisco which would preserve the airlines shoreline 
departure path well into the future and protect what is the only 
noise abatement procedure from SFO that doesn't overfly homes. He 
said that the City of So. San Francisco returned to the Airport and 
advised that it could not complete the required protective actions 
within the time frames specified by the agreement. He said that 
South City has determined that a full environmental review, Including 
an EIR, is necessary prior to final consideration of the protective 
actions. Moreover, South City's financial constraints will not 
permit them to fund such an environmental review, at least in the 
short term. So. San Francisco has requested accommodation from the 
Airport on both accounts and has given notice that it will hold a 
public hearing on April 8 to consider a moratorium on noise-sensitive 
land uses east of highway 101 for a period of 45 days. This could be 
extended under the law to an aggregate period of two years. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the resolution before the Commission amends 
the agreement which allows for this change In time frame and to allow 
funding of this environmental report. Such funding will be a draw 
down against the money the Airports Commission appropriated for the 
Insulation of homes in So. San Francisco at the conclusion of the 
environmental process. 

Commissioner Mattlson said that as was the case In the Initial 
deliberation of the original amendment, and in order to avoid any 
potential appearance of conflict due to property Interest In this 
general area, he asked to be recused from voting on this item. 

The Commission gave its unanimous approval to recuse Commissioner 
Mattlson. 

Mr. Turpen said that the down side to this Is that If the 
environmental report does not result 1n the protection the Airport 
hopes will be there, the agreement will not go through and the 
Airport will not be obligated to spend that money. On the other 
hand, the Airport will have protection for about two years in 
exchange for the amount of the EIR. 




Mr. Turpen said he remains confident that the results of this effort 
will ratify the Airports Commission's position concerning the 
sensitivity of that area for residential use. 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 5 



5. PG&E/Airport Natural Gas Vehicle Project 

No. 92-0103 

Mr. Mohammad Yazdi of PG&E said that he and Rob Kahn were present to 
answer any questions the Commission might have. He said that they 
have been working with Airport staff for about a year and a half on 
this project and PG&E was looking forward starting It up. 

Mr. Bouey explained that the Airport has come to an agreement with 
PG&E to establish a natural gas facility at the Airport. He said 
that the most obvious benefit is that there appears to be a fuel cost 
savings of about 33%. The difference 1n cost between the two fuels 
for like amounts is about 40% but staff feels that Airport vehicles 
will get just a little less mileage using natural gas than regular 
unleaded fuel . 

Mr. Bouey said that the more dynamic benefit is to the environment. 
Natural gas is not only more plentiful in the United States and 
Canada but burns more cleanly. He added that 1n the event of an 
accident the fuel will disperse Into the air and will not puddle, 
which requires a hazardous substance clean-up. 

Mr. Bouey said that staff envisions over time that other Airport 
tenants will want to use this facility. United has already agreed to 
convert 20 of their vehicles over a two year period and will use this 
stalon. He said that the Airport's obligation at this point Is 
simply to convert 10 vehicles the first year and 10 the second. The 
agreement has a term life of three years. At the end of that time 
the Airport can walk away from it. At any time during the agreement 
the Airport may purchase this facility for its fair market value, but 
not to exceed the construction cost of the facility. 

Commissioner Mattlson asked if there was a cost estimate. 

Mr. Bouey responded that it is approximately $275,000. 

Commissioner Mattlson asked how many vehicles It would serve. 

Mr. Bouey responded that SFO owns approximately 200 vehicles, 100 of 
which would be candidates for conversion. He estimated that there 
might be about another 300 vehicles on the Airport owned by tenants 
that would also be candidates for conversion. He said that the 
facility can be expanded to accommodate the additional vehicles at a 
cost of between $50,000 and $75,000. 

Mr. Bouey added that PG&E recently signed an agreement with Olympic 
011, located about one-quarter of a mile from the Airport, to serve 
as a backup station to provide natural gas. 

Commissioner Ho asked where else these vehicles were being used. 

Mr. Bouey responded that PG&E has their fleet on natural gas. There 
are two or three other private fleets that are using natural gas as 
wel 1 . 

Mr. Rob Kahn, PG&E, said that by the middle of 1993 PG&E expects to 
have close to 40 fueling stations in service that will accommodate 
about 400 to 500 of PG&E's vehicles as well as somewhere In the 
neighborhood of 800 customer vehicles. He said that some of their 
customers plan on installing their own stations. 

Commissioner Ho asked if there was a reason why we were going for gas 
rather than electric. 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 6 



Mr. Bouey responded that natural gas provides more flexibility with 
the automobiles. The natural gas technology Is here now. He said 
that General Motors manufactures a natural gas vehicles that can be 
purchased. Other than golf carts, no manufacturer produces electric 
vehicles. 

Mr. Bouey added that the fuel tank will be left 1n the vehicles. If 
there Is a problem, the vehicle can be converted back, to gas by 
flipping a switch. 



Authorization to Receive Bids for South Terminal ShoesMne Stands 
Lease 

No. 92-0104 



7. Authorization to Accept Bids: Lingerie and Haberdashery Shop 
No. 92-0105 

8. This item has been removed from the calendar. 



9. Request for Conceptual Approval for Reimbursement of Unamortized 
Improvements 

No. 92-0106 Approve San Francisco Foreign Flag 

Carrier's Request for Conceptual 
Approval for Reimbursement of 
Unamortized Improvements associated 
with the Modernization of the Ground 
Power System In the International 
Terminal . 

Commissioner Murphy said that normally he did not like this type of 
item but felt this was in the best Interest of passengers. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Airport will be able to recoup the cost 
by passing it on to the successor airlines. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 10 through 13 and 15 through 20 were adopted unanimously. Item 
No. 14 was put over. 

10. Retirement Resolutions : 

Norman Astrin Esperanza Martinez 

Leon Bitners Dan Slmpkins 

Doug Ching Vern Steffey 

Jess De La Paz Hellmund Wong 

Gene Lee Fred Schmidt 

Nos. 92-0107 thru 92-0116 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 7 



11. Award of Contract No. 3063 

Emergency Pavement Repair - 1992 

No. 92-0117 Resolution awarding Airport Contract 

No. 3063, Emergency Pavement Repair - 
1992, to Ghilottl Bros., Inc. in the 
amount of $298,500.00. 



12. Award of Contract No. 3067 

Traffic Signal Modification at McDonnell Road 

No. 92-0118 Resolution awarding Contract No. 3067, 

Traffic Signal Modification at 
McDonnell to ARC Electric Company 1n 
the amount of $77,000.00. 



13. Contract No. 3126 Budget Increase 

Emergency Mater Main Repair - McDonnell Road and R-6 

No. 92-0119 Resolution approving the construction 

budget increase from $75,000 to 
$140,000 for Emergency Water Main 
Repair at McDonnell Road and R-6. 



Item No. 14 was put over, 

14. Termination of Contract No. 2299R 

North Terminal Basement Ventilation and Drainage Improvement 

Resolution terminating the contract 
with Eddie D. Steppat, Inc. and 
authorizing the Director to 
re-advertise Contract 2299R for rebld. 



Bid Call - Contract No. 3124 
Runway Rubber Removal 1992-1993 

No. 92-0120 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 3124, 
and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



16. Reimbursement to Delta Airlines for Boarding Area "C" Security 
Checkpoint Expansion 

No. 92-0121 Approve reimbursement to Delta 

Airlines for expansion of the Boarding 
Area "C" Security Checkpoint at a 
not-to-exceed cost of $150,000. 



17. International and North Terminal Cigarette Vending Lease - First 

Option 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 8 



No. 92-0122 Resolution approving the first 

one-year lease option for the 
International and North Terminal 
Cigarette Vending Lease. 



18. Medical Clinic 

No. 92-0123 Extension to Third Modification to 

Agreement of Airport Medical Clinic. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff Is still working on the expanded program 
he had talked about. It 1s taking longer than projected. 



19. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 
No. 92-0124 



20. Contract with the Corporation of Fine Arts Museums, San Francisco 
$96,000 

No. 92-0125 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

21. New Bayvlew Committee 

Mr. Darrell Bishop told the Commission that he was speaking on behalf of 
the New Bayvlew Committee and the Afro-Americans who live In the Bayvlew 
Hunters Point area. He said that the people who work In the area are not 
able to participate in the contracts that are awarded at the Airport. He 
said that the Bayview is the closest community to the Airport and they 
would like to be Involved in the construction as well as the permanent 
work after these facilities are built. He said that he would like to 
attend additional meetings. 

Commissioner Murphy told Mr. Bishop that he was welcome to attend every 
meeting held by the Commission but he also recommended that a group from 
his community sit down with the Airport staff and discuss how to 
participate in this project and how to submit bids. He suggested talking 
to Mr. Turpen after the meeting to obtain names and numbers of appropriate 
staff members. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 9 



K. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:15 AM. 



Jjean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, April 7, 1992, Page 10 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 







MINUTES 



April 21, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










April 21, 1992 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 







Regular meeting of 

April 7, 1992 92-0128 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



PENDING LEGISLATION: 

Resolutions Opposing Enactment 

of AB 2433 (Areias) and 92-0129 

AB 3293 (Moore) 92-0130 



3-4 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Selection of Mara Rosales-Cordova 

as Airports General Counsel 92-0131 



Award of Contract 2247B - Fire 
Alarm Systems Modernization 



92-0132 



Mod. of Feasibility Consultant 
Contract - John F. Brown Co. 92-0133 



4-5 
5 
5 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Retirement Resolutions: 

Nedo Buljan 92-0126 

Delores McCray 92-0127 

Modification of Food & 

Beverage Consultant Agreement 92-0134 

Award Contract 2333R - Airport 
Maintenance Base, Replace Security 
Gates 'A' and 'B' 92-0135 

Bid Call - Contract 3048 • 

International Terminal Lower 

Level Exterior Wall Improvement * t '-0'36 

Request Funds - Contract 3060 

Emergency Cable Replacement, 

Cable i 2BATS-1 92-0137 



10. Approve License Agreement between 
H11 ton Hotels Corp. and Dollar 
Operations, Inc. 6 

H. NEW BUSINESS: 7 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 7 

J. CLOSED SESSION: 

SFO Airporter, Linney, Davanis, 

Donnelly 7 

K. ADJOURNMENT: 7 



M'lutes, April 21 . 1992. Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 21 , 1992 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:05 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Absent: James K. Ho 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0128 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



E. PENDING LEGISLATION: 

Item no. 1 was adopted unanimously. 

1 . Resolutions Opposing Enactment of AB 2433 (Areias) and AB 3293 (Moore) 

No. 92-0129 
No. 92-0130 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that the State of 
California charges approximately $85.00 per flight from airlines for 
agriculture inspection. It now wants the Airport to collect the fee 
and pass it on to them. He said that he does not believe the Airport 
should be collecting fees for a State governmental agency. Further, 
this issue is subject to litigation between the airlines and the 
State. 



M' utes Ap'-i 1 i , ; 992 Page l 



Commissioner Murphy asked how the fees were presently collected. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he was not sure. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if the fees were really being collected. 

Mr. Turpen said that as far as he knows they are. 

Commissioner Mattison asked why this bill was being sponsored. 

Mr. Turpen thought that it would probably be easier for airports to 
collect the fees and pass on a cost savings to the State. He said 
that there are Federal agricultural requirements, which include 
x-raying all bags coming through customs, and inspection fees as well. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if LAX was opposing this as well. 

Mr. Peter Nardoza, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
responded that LAX has not yet taken an official position. 

Mr. Turpen said he did not want to become a collection agency for 
everyone wanting to levy a fee or tax on people who do business at 
the Airport. He said Its a matter of principle rather than a 
judgment on the merits or demerits of any State agricultural charge. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre asked if there would be any benefit in 
putting an override on it so the Airport could receive additional 
revenue for collecting money these fees. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, responded 
that the State proposed an administrative fee that would go to the 
Airport. 

Mr. Turpen felt it was just another layer of fees and charges that 
were unnecessary. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the other bill 1s focused on San Francisco 
Airport. It is a follow-up to our long running battle with the State 
legislature on limousines. 

Mr. Rob Maerz, Deputy City Attorney, explained that this 1s a 
companion measure to AB 1506, sponsored by Assemblywoman Gwen Moore, 
limiting an airport's authority to regulate limousine operations. 
The prior bill prohibited airports from imposing gross receipts fees 
and precluded airports from enforcing more stringent insurance 
licensing and safety requirements on limousine operators. This bill 
would vest 1n the PUC authority to preclude airports from Imposing 
licensing fees which are unreasonably burdensome on those limousine 
operators who operate on an occasional basis. 

Commissioner Murphy asked how "occasional" was defined. 

Mr. Maerz responded that it would be up to the PUC to define 
"occasional basis" and "reasonably burdensome." He said that he has 
spoken with the PUC and they do not support this bill. 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANACE 

Item Nos. 2 through 4 were adopted unanimously. 

2. Resolution Approving the Selection of Mara Rosal es-Cordova as Airport 
General Counsel 

Minutes Ap' ! • 2* , 1992, Page 4 



No. 92-0131 

Mr. Turpen said that based on Commission procedure both he and 
Commissioner Murphy interviewed Ms. Rosales and recommended her to 
the Commission. 

Commissioner Mattison asked Ms. Rosales what her priorities were in 
considering this position. 

Ms. Rosales responded that she has given this opportunity a great 
deal of thought. She has been in practice for 10 years, and has been 
with the City for nine years. She has worked with the Human Rights 
Commission and is leaving the Recreation and Park Commission for this 
position. She said that it is not easy to give up a client that you 
enjoy working with however she is ready to grow. She has made a 
conscious decision to stay with the City rather than go into private 
practice. She feels this is an excellent opportunity for her and 
looks forward to working with the Commission and staff. She is 
enthusiastic about the position. The Airport Commission has a very 
good reputation, not only in terms of the Its work but the people who 
work for the Airport as well. 



3. Award of Contract No. 2247B 

F1re Alarm Systems Modernization 

No. 92-0132 Resolution awarding Contract No. 2247B 

to Simplex Time Recorder Co. in the 
amount of $482,921 .00. 

Commissioner Mattison asked why the large discrepency in bids. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities Operations and 
Maintenance responded that he felt Thorn believed they would be the 
only bidder and they could charge whatever the market would bare. He 
said that fortunately staff was able to find another bidder. 

Mr. Bouey said that Simplex has a very fine reputation. 



Modification of Feasibility Consultant Contract 

No. 92-0133 Resolution approving modification of 

contract with John F. Brown Company 
for work on future bond Issuances. 

Mr. Turpen said that the modification outlines continued support for 
the upcoming master plan. Attachment A outlines a breakout of costs 
he expects will be incurred as part of the execution of the master 
plan once it is certified and approved by the Commission. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if these were specific consultations on 
review and clarification of particular line items. 

Mr. Turpen responded that John Brown either prepares or updates the 
forecast. Since we just went out with the bond issue we will be 
updating our forecast as we move forward with new issues. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre asked if the MBE and WBE were identified. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff is working on it and he will get back 
to him. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they were 

Minutes, Apt ■ i 21 , 1992. Page 5 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 5 through 9 were adopted unanimously. Item No. 10 was put over. 

5. Retirement Resolutions: Delores McCray and Nedo Bul.jan 

No. 92-0126 
No. 92-0127 

6. Modification of Food and Beverage Consultant Agreement 

No. 92-0134 Resolution approving the allocation of 

additional funds to the Food and 
Beverage Consultant Agreement. 

7. Award of Contract No. 2333R 

Airport Maintenance Base Replacement of Security Gates 'A' and 'B' 

No. 92-0135 Resolution awarding Contract No. 2333R 

to KMF Associates in the amount of 
$79,950. 

8. Bid Call - Contract No. 3048 

International Terminal Lower Level Exterior Mall Improvement 

No. 92-0136 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget, and schedule for Contract No. 
3048 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



9. Request for Funds - Contract No. 3060 
Emergency Cable Replacement, Cable 12BATS-1 

No. 92-0137 Resolution approving the request for 

an additional $55,000 to be Included 
for Contract No. 3060. The original 
budgeted amount was $1,300,000.00. 
The total contract cost is 
$1,348,148.30. 

Item No. 10 was put over. 

10. Approval of License Agreement between Hilton Hotels Corporation and 
Dollar Operations, Inc. 

Mr. Turpen explained that Hertz asked that this item be put over. He 
explained that Hertz was the previous occupant of that space 
involved. The Hilton Hotel has elected to pursue an arrangement with 
Dollar Rent-A-Car, which is their right. Hertz, as a courtesy, asked 
for an opportunity to do some work on their own prior to Commission 
action. He said that unless the Hilton changes Irs mind staff will 
return with this item at the next meeting in the same form. This is 
simply an accommodation for Hertz. 



Minutes, April 21 , 1992, Page 6 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



CLOSED SESSION: 



The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9 to discuss the following pending 
litigation: SFO Airporter v. C&CofSF, Linney v. C&CofSF, Davanis v. 
C&CofSF and Donnelly v. C&CofSF. 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:19 AM to go into closed session. 




CtUL$A^ 



lean Caramatti 
lommission Secretary 



Minutes, April 21 1992. Page 7 



/ 



// 



SAN FRANCISCO 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

M J § 1992 

PUBLIC LIBfURV 



//// 



MAY 5, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L. ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










May. 5, 1992 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

April 21, 1992 92-0139 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
BART 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Conceptual Approval of Partial 
Reimbursement to Replace Hilton's 
HVAC System in Return for Waiver 

of Exclusivity 92-0140 

2. Award Garage Taxi Staging Area 
Mobile Catering Lease A and 

Lease B 92-0141 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

3. Mod. No. 4 of Agreement with Howard, 

Rice, et al - $250,000 92-0143 4 

4. Mod. No. 8 of Agreement with Hanson, 

Bridgett, et al - $250,000 92-0144 5 

5. Approve License Agreement between 
Hilton Hotels Corp. and Dollar 

Operations, Inc. 92-0145 5-8 

6. Modify Lease & Use - Agreement 

with USAir, Inc. - Mod. No. 5 92-0146 8 

7. Consent to Transfer of Dames & Moore's 
Interest 1n Contract 2400A to 

Dames & Moore, Inc. 92-0147 9 

8. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 92-0148 9 

9. Retirement Resolution: 

Joe Pal umbo 92-0138 9 



G. NEW BUSINESS: 

Security - Lot D 9-10 

Travel /Training 92-0149 10 

H. CORRESPONDENCE: 11 

I. CLOSED SESSION: 

Litigation: SFO Airporter 11 

0. ADJOURNMENT: 11 



Minutes. May r s9j p age 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

May 5, 1992 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:03 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattlson, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Absent: James K. Ho 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 21 were adopted by order of 
the Commission President. 

No. 92-0139 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Turpen for a briefing on BART at the next 
meeting and noted that we are getting down to the crunch time on the BART 
Issue. He asked what the additional cost would be to come back out of the 
Airport and join the BART line that would run 1n the vicinity of the 
CalTrain tracks if a determination were made to resume BART further south 
to San Jose or Palo Alto. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is a current estimate of approximately 
$480-mi 1 1 1on to come into the garage with the tail track extending out to 
just beyond the South Terminal lobby. From that point, continuing South 
on an alignment would probably take us back in the vicinity of the 
Mi 1 1 brae station. He said that he would come up with an estimate. 

Commissioner Murphy said that as the debate sharpens the question that 

would come up is now that you have spent an additional $450-million have 

you also locked yourself into an additional incremental expenditure to 
link back In. 

Mr. Turpen said that he would try to have it by the next Commission 
meeting. 



Minutes May 5 '992, Page 3 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos. 1 and 2 were adopted unanimously. 

1 . Conceptual Approval of Partial Reimbursement for Replacement of 
Hilton Hotel's HVAC System in Return for klaiver of Exclusivity 

No. 92-0140 Resolution approving concept of 

reimbursing Hilton for a portion of 
HVAC replacement costs in return for 
Hilton's waiver of exclusivity clause. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the waiver of exclusivity was a new 
feature. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it has always been the Airport's position. 
When the Hilton approached the Airport initially, staff wanted them 
to waive their exclusivity as part of our original negotiation. He 
did not believe it has ever been a major point of contention. 

Commissioner Mattison said that since the Airport may inherit the 
residual book value of the HVAC system, how will the bidding process 
be monitored and controlled. 

Commissioner Murphy said he was convinced this was worth doing. He 
hoped his concerns about rescuing our tenants from the folly of their 
ways if they have misconstructed, not planned properly or failed to 
amortize something will not be realized. He felt that from the 
changes 1n the hotel industry and the somewhat unique circumstances 
here he was persuaded this was a good Idea. 



Award of Garage Taxi Staging Area Mobile Catering Lease "A" and Lease 
"B" 

No. 92-0141 Resolution to award Garage Taxi 

Staging Area Mobile Catering Lease "A" 
to Antonio G. Semira and Garage Taxi 
Staging Area Mobile Catering Lease "B" 
to Caterer's Club (a partnership). 

Commissioner Murphy asked 1f these were small business set asides. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they were. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 3 through 9 were adopted unanimously. 

3. Modification No. 4 of Agreement with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski , 
Canadv, Robertson & Falk - $250,000 

No. 92-0143 Resolution approving Modification No. 

4 of agreement with the law firm of 
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski et al to 
increase funding by the sum of 
$250,000; all other terms and 
conditions to remain unchanged. 



Minutes, May 5. 1992. Page 4 



4. Modification No. 8 of Agreement with Hanson, Bridqett, Marcus, Vlahos 
& Rudy - $250,000 

No. 92-0144 Resolution approving and authorizing 

Mod. No. 8 of agreement with Hanson, 
Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy to 
expand scope of work, and increase 
- ' funding by the sum of $250,000. 



Approval of License Agreement between Hilton Hotels Corporation and 
Dollar Operations, Inc. 

No. 92-0145 

Mr. Bill Lawder, Director of Properties for Hertz said that placing 
the Hilton/Dollar licensing agreement on the Consent Calendar for 
Routine Administrative Matters manifests a staff misconception of the 
importance of the on-Airport rent-a-car industry to the City as a 
source of revenue and convenience to visitors. The responsibility of 
staff to control the allocation of scarce Airport space and the 
importance of not tampering with allocations among concessionaires 
that are competitors which upset a relative balance of need for 
space. He said that rather than take these three decision criteria 
into account staff recommends the allocation of space formerly 
allocated by this Commission to Hertz to Dollar Rent-A-Car on the 
basis that "side deals are the purview of the respective companies." 
He said that it is as if staff is saying that once the Airport leases 
property to a tenant the Airport loses control over how the property 
is used. If that were so there would be no need for the clause 
providing for Airports Commission approval on subleases. 

Mr. Lawder said that Dollar, Budget and National Rent-A-Cars were 
allocated more space than there respective market shares in the 
1989-90 reallocation of space. Hertz was allocated too little. 
Dollar's space is all on one lot. Hertz must shuttle cars between 
four lots, of which Hilton is the closest to their service center. 

Mr. Lawder said that Hertz market share on the Airport Is about 381. 
Dollar's is 61. Hertz customers are experiencing waits for their 
cars during peak periods now. Hertz has been seeking more operating 
space on Airport since last April. They are spending $l-m1 1 1 Ion a 
year shuttling cars among lots on the Airport. Hertz asks that the 
City, through its Airports Commission, exercise its authority to 
ensure rational use of scarce Airport space and to better serve the 
traveling public and to treat competing Airport tenants even handedly. 

Commissioner Mattison asked 1f Hertz has engaged In dialogue with 
Hilton about this same plot. 

Mr. Lawder responded that they have. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if it was a competing negotiation. 

Mr. Lawder responded that Airport policy indicates that a sublessor 
cannot charge more than 15% of what is being paid to the Airport for 
a lease. The amount, therefore, is fixed. 

Mr. Lawder said that Hertz has been subleasing that lot from Hilton 
since 1977. In 1984 the Airport formerly allocated the space to 
Hertz. He said that what fell apart in the negotiation was the type 
of shuttle van supplied. The Hertz City Manager disagreed with the 
former Hilton General Manager on the type of shuttle van to be used. 
Although Hilton s former General Manager was willing to accept Hertz 
alternative, he 'ate- deeded to turn it down. He wanted a type of 
van not available in the Hertz fleet. 

m i.utea . *a* b, 1992. Page 5 



Mr. Lawder explained that Hertz buys the vans and gives them to the 
Airport. The depreciation acts as rent and at the end of a period of 
time Hertz takes the vans back, and renews them. That would have 
happened here. 

Mr. Lawder said that Hertz offered to supply Hilton with an executive 
car plus the money to buy or lease two vans so that Hertz would not 
have vans going back, into their fleet that they don't use. Hertz 
would have matched anything financially that Dollar would provide. 
Mr. Lawder said that there really is no competition for the sublease 
as the cost is fixed by the Airport. The issue is whether or not the 
Airport should allocate additional space to its smallest rent-a-car 
operator, which already has relatively more space than it should 
have, and take away space from Hertz which had been allocated that 
space by the Commission some time ago. 

Commissioner Mattison asked staff to comment. His concern was to 
what extent the Commission should interfere in legitimate arms-length 
business dealings among tenants. 

Mr. Conrad Wangeman, Airport Hilton General Manager, said that while 
he could not speak on the allocation percentages he could speak on 
the negotiations. Hertz has not been charged rent for the last 
30-days while they have been using the lot with Dollar. He said that 
he has been on the property for four weeks and in that time he has 
not been contacted by anyone from Hertz. He said that he has also 
spoken with their leasing person and comptroller. 

Mr. Wangeman said that it was his understanding that the Hertz area 
people and District Manager are very good to deal with but it was 
difficult to get a final answer from them on this issue. Hilton 
struck the same deal with Dollar as they had with Hertz in the 
previous lease. The only difference is that Mr. Groves (former 
Hilton General Manager) wanted to have the right to choose the 
company that manufactured the vans they are leasing from the 
rent-a-car company. That was the only difference. Mr. Groves wanted 
to make a decision and Hertz was slow in getting back to them. Mr. 
Groves sought another vendor and they were fast in responding. 

Mr. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
explained that Airport staff does look to intervene in situations 
between tenants where it feels that the Airport's or passengers 
interests are at stake. Staff saw this as a basic business deal 
between two companies, different from the two that were in business 
deal before. 

Mr. Gittens said that with respect to the rental car allocation this 
area, which is primarily used on weekends when the space is 
available, has never been a part of the so-called market share 
allocation that Airport staff has attempted to use in allocating 
space to rent-a-cars. She used the term "attempted to use" because 
staff has never even used a market share allocation. Staff has tried 
to approach it so that the bigger companies get more space. When 
those shares change we have a very difficult time trying to 
reallocate the space because of physical configurations. Dollar, in 
fact, does have over its share and the reason for that is since they 
are so small the get a block of space, the configuration of which 
came out to more than what they would have been entitled to under an 
arithmatlc formula. 

Mr. Gittens said that staff is looking for more space for Hertz We 
are space constrained with all rent-a-cars. She said that Hertz 
probably has the worst situation since they are more divided up. 
Staff is attempting to find more space and larger lots of space so 
they won't have to separate their activities as much as they do now. 

Minutes. May 5. 1992, Page 6 



Mr. Lawder explained that Hertz did not contact Mr. Wangeman because 
they had already been contacted by Hilton's real estate attorney in 
Los Angeles to say that an agreement with Dollar had been approved by 
the Airport. Mr. Lawder assumed that that meant it had been approved 
by staff but not the Commission. He said he did not think it made 
any sense to contact the new General Manager about something their 
real estate attorney in L.A. claimed was a done deal. 

Mr. Lawder said Hertz is not mad at Hilton, they are annoyed with the 
Airport. He said he can supply documentation proving that it is not 
true that the Airport has not allocated space in the past trying to 
approximate market share. It is also not true that the Airport could 
not have done that in Dollar's case during the last allocation. It 
is true that the Airport Commission in 1984 allocated the Hilton lot 
as part of the current concession agreement to the Hertz Corp. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the Commission allocated the Hilton lot 
to the Hertz Corp. or consented to a license of the allocated Hilton 
lot to the Hertz Corp. 

Mr. Lawder responded that Hertz had a sublease with Hilton since 
1977. That was a fact at the time of the last allocation and it was 
included in the allocation to Hertz, over its objection, because the 
lot is not always available. Customers can not get their vehicles or 
be checked in there. The Hilton lot is used for overflow during peak 
periods. If vehicles are being turned in faster than they can be 
washed and fueled they are taken to the Hilton so that more cars can 
be checked in. 

Mr. Lawder said Hertz is operating at peak period demand that far 
exceeds its space. They have been looking for more space on the 
Airport since last April. They can't wait. This means they will 
have to start shuttling cars to their Mi librae facility, which will 
add to the $l-million a year they are currently spending on shuttles. 
He said that it doesn't make economic sense, nor is it fair. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if it would be reasonable to research the 
documentation to find out if there is a record of the Commission 
having included that lot in a percentage allocation or goal or the 
attempt to approximate market share. He felt it would be an 
important variable in the consideration. There is a fundamental 
disagreement on the fact. 

Mr. Lawder said that it was in April or May of 1984 when the 
Commission approved the existing concession agreement with an 
attachment showing what the allocation of space is along with a 
breakdown by lot size of what has been allocated to each of the 
on-Airport concessionaires. 

Ms. Gittens clarified that Mr. Lawder is not saying that the current 
allocation included that lot. 

Mr. Lawder said that he was not. Hertz strenuously objected to 
having that lot allocated in its current allocation because it wasn't 
the same quality. The lot cannot be used all the time and buses 
cannot be driven through it to drop customers off. Hertz was 
assigned the lot over that objection. During the 1988 and 1989 
allocation he was asked by Airport staff whether they were going to 
keep the Hilton lot. He responded that they would not keep it if 
staff counted it in their allocation because it's not the same 
quality lot. He said that when he objected to National, Dollar and 
Budget being allocated more than their market share he was told by 
staff that "that was the way it was going to be. Besides, you have 
the Hilton lot." 



Minutes. May 5, 1992. Page 



Mr. Lawder said that he has asked staff that if the Hilton allocation 
was approved to Dollar that space from their competitors be 
reallocated. He said that National has been sitting on half an acre 
too much for the past 10 years. 

Commissioner Mattison said that he is loathe to undo good faith 
bargains. All of the parties knew what they were doing. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is a view that is held by some more than 
others that space in a space constrained Airport is important to the 
success of the operation. All of the rent-a-car companies want more 
space. We don't have it. That's why we're building the rent-a-car 
garages. Hertz has a large lot which sits off Mi 11 brae Avenue and 
101, and is virtually vacant, with no more than 15 or 20 cars. He 
said he is certain that Mr. Lawder is actively exploring every 
possible option for additional space above and beyond the allocation. 
As a business position they will try to round up as much space as 
they can as a contingency for their future needs. 

Commissioner Murphy asked If it were true that Hertz and Avis have 
been under-allocated while the others have been over-allocated. 

Ms. Glttens responded that it is true at times and untrue at others. 
Right now it would be true. She said that when the 1984 allocation 
was made Hertz was over-allocated and Budget was under-allocated. 
Avis was under-allocated and received more space. National was just 
about right at that time. Since then Budget has lost market share, 
and Hertz and National have gained market share. 

Commissioner Murphy agreed with Commissioner Mattison that we should 
not interfere in arms length commercial transactions. He felt that 
this was a visible symptom of a bigger problem. He did not know that 
this lot was as important as the allocation of space. Perhaps staff 
should see what could be done to patch the problem until the garage 
1s constructed. He said he was not unsympathetic to good 
concessionaires at the Airport although he noted that the last time 
Hertz appeared before the Commission it was treated very well so he 
doesn't feel too guilty. His Inclination was to approve it with the 
caveat that staff be asked to revisit the allocation issue. He said 
that the allocations should reflect the amount of business as opposed 
to historical accidents. 

Mr. Turpen said he would take a look at market share and current 
allocations and report back. He was concerned with the implication 
that there would be a reallocation. It Is a very lengthy process. 

Ms. Glttens said that staff is working on the interim relocation. 
Most of the rent-a-cars will have to move for the master plan program. 

Mr. Turpen said that he would be happy to report back on what 
currently exists. 

Commissioner Murphy also asked for information on what might be done 
to alleviate the Hertz problem. He said that the explanation a 
couple of years ago was that Hertz had the Hilton lot. That was not 
an allocation, it was a justification. That is now gone. 



6. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement with U SAir, Inc. - 
Modification No. 5 

No 92-0146 Resolution modifying USAir, Inc. Lease 

and Use Agreement No. 82-0120 to 
relinquish ticket and back office 
space in the South Terminal building. 

Minutes. May 5, 199, . Page 8 



Consent to Transfer of Dames & Moore's Interest in Contract 2400A, 
Geotechnical Engineering Services, to Dames and Moore, Inc. 

No. 92-0147 Our Geotechnical Consultant Dames and 

Moore has changed its form of business 
from a professional limited partnership 
to a corporation. This authorizes the 
Director to execute the Novation 
Agreement. 



8. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 92-0148 Resolution, in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



Retirement Resolution: Joe Pal umbo 
No. 92-0138 



G. NEW BUSINESS: 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Stuart Strauss and Ms. Nancy Lemon if they 
wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Strauss told the Commission that they are very concerned about the 
security at Lot D. He presented the Commission with petitions (see 
attached), explaining that they were more a statement that something needs 
to be done. He said that cars are being stolen, there is one case of 
rape, sexual assaults, vandalism, and parking permits being stolen. They 
have incident reports dating back to 1989. He felt that the incidents 
began escalating 1n 1992. He hoped to share Ideas on how to corect this 
problem. He suggested a security gate, tiger teeth, a guard at the gate 
and perhaps a floating guard. 

Ms. Lemon said that one day 1n March she left work at 10:00 PM and when 
she got to her car she found it perched on two milk crates and all the 
tires had been removed. They had also disengaged her alarm system. She 
said that these things happen every day to all Airport employees. She is 
very concerned about the lack of security. 

Mr. Strauss said that according to the Incident reports (attached) the 
more recent thefts within the last couple of years seem to be 
professional. The thieves are going after specific security systems, 
vehicles, tires, etc. They seem to know what they are doing and that 
there is no security at Lot D. 

Ms. Lemon said that the long term lot has far fewer crimes because they 
have a security system in place. 

Chief Ron Driscoll, Airport Police, said he understood the employee's 
concerns for their safety and their property and he appreciated their 
frustration. While he did not want to downplay the events that occur in 
Lot D, the statistical information did not indicate there are uncontrolled 
events of crime in that area. In 1990 there were 47 incidents of either 

Minutes, May 5. 1992, Page 9 



vandalism, theft, burglary or stolen autos. In 1991 there were 48 
incidents. Twenty incidents have been reported in 1992. When you 
consider that there are 1000 parking stalls in Lot D and that most of 
those stalls are used every day the comparison does not indicate 
uncontrolled activity out there. He added that patrols do enter Lot D. 
He is looking at other measures to implement and improve security such as 
positive control and entering the lot, better lighting, camera systems, 
etc. A definitive determination has not yet been made. 

Commissioner Murphy asked what kind of lighting is used in Lot D. 

Chief Driscoll responded that it is normal spot lighting. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre asked if it was well lit. 

Chief Driscoll responded that It is well lit but not enough for a camera 
system. 

Chief Driscoll said that if employees have a concern about some type of 
activity they should discuss it with Airport Police and work together to 
resolve the problem. He said that he knows of Incidences where employees 
have called weeks after the fact to report a particular incident without 
ever having filed a report. He said the best action is Immediate action. 

Commissioner Murphy said the petition is fairly straightforward and 
requests 24-hour security guards at Lot D. 

Mr. Turpen said the suggestions and Intent of the testimony Is clear and 
steps can be taken immediately to begin to address the problem. 

Commissioner Murphy said the Commission is concerned when employees report 
they are worried about going to a lot. This petition is repleat with 
incidents. He said there is a high degree of frustration and the problem 
should be dealt with. He wanted staff to report back on what steps will 
be taken. 

Commissioner Mattison agreed that it would be fairly simple to have an 
immediate Impact on the incidents by beefing up security and then taking a 
long term look at the issue. 

Mr. Strauss said he did not mean to downgrade the Police Department. He 
understands that there are other more pressing issues the Police must 
address. He said that Cal State Patrol has the contract for the long term 
lot. Their request would actually free up the Police Department and 
should not cost the Airport anything as the permits are paid for. 

Commissioner Murphy said that the nature of the airline business and the 
businesses that serve it is such that people are going to the parking lot 
at odd hours of the night. 

Mr. Strauss explained that he is not the designated speaker for the 
employees. While nothing has been done to his car he felt these problems 
and concerns should be brought to the Commission's attention. 



Mr. Turpen asked the Commission to approve travel for him to Chicago to 
meet with United Airlines officials and Washington, D.C. to meet with the 
FAA. 

The request was approved unanimously. 

No. 92-0149 



Minutes, May 5. 1 992 . Page 10 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 



The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9 to discuss litigation with SFO Airporter. 



J. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM to go into closed session. 




iUc^H/fotToC 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



0562C 



Minutes, May 5, 1992. Page 11 



Hay 9, 1992 



Tot Louie A. Turpen, Director of San Franelaoo International 
Airport 

P. 0. lox S097 

San Franelaoo International Airport 
San Franelaoo, California 

Ha: Security at employee parking lot "D" 



Daar Hr. Turpen, 

We who vork at tha Airport and halp kaap it running art wy 
concerned about tha alnlaal aecurity at tha employee parking lot 
•D". 

Zn tha paat few yaara aany aaployaaa have had thalr cara atolan or 
vandalized. Othera have been phyalcally and aexually aaeaulted. 
And theae lncidenta have been inereaelng at an alaraing rate. 

Senior Airport enployeea have aeen the coat of parking peralta rlae 
froa as. 00 per quarter to the current MS. 00 vith atill no aeeurlty 
■yatea available. We feel ve deaerve the aaae protection afforded 
to thoae vho uae the long tern lot, that la, 24 hour aecurity 
guarde and a aecurity gate, like the one at the 'Delta' lot. The 
guarde recently poated in long tera can patrol "D" lot aa veil, 
fvo or three white courteoy phonea ahould be added at atrategie 
polnte ao the Airport police can be contacted. 

flth public aafety and Airport liability at otake. We truat you 
»111 give our concerna the proapt conaideratlona they deaerve. 



Sincerely 

SFO Airport Enployeea 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 




8) J?.** JU**^ 
9)/i^U- 

11 ) T •> »/"» i 4*1 >»£>**/ 

1 2 lL-***-** ^ /J 'I Z^ry iZ A 

13) ^«/i 4/''{*mf 

18) i,^ _£.—^„ 




21 

27 — r- 

31)i|SCo^A»XioS 

32 ) fXc,^ t+Ul+K**) 



COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 




- *Af" - 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1 ) I am currently working at SFO. 

2 ) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

16 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 



r Wo) 



COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 



> 



7 






o 



Kf-H • 









t'U* L 



30 Oaz^z-tt^*-*- 

31 

32 







C twc p cl i o* r « po r+s 









-~p*jj*i. etc 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR IN ITIALS 



COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 



- A*iz> 

- A** 

- 4„.s 

- l/'S 

-PUIS, 




si* n 



/cst> 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1 ) I am currently working at SFO. 

2 ) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR IN ITIALS COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 



13) ' 






- hs** 



14 ) 
15) 
16) 
i ' i 
16) 
19) 
20) 
21) 
22) 
22) 
24) 
25) 
26) 
27) 
28) 
29) 
30) 
31) 
32) 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 




1) 
2) 

3) 

4) 

5) 

6) 

7) 

8) 

9) 

10) 

11) 

12 ) 

13) 

14) 

15) 

16) 

17) 

18) 

19) 

20) 

21) 

22) 

23) 

24) 

25) 

26) 

27) 

28) 

29) 

30) 

31) 



INITIALS 



jr#v 



COHPAMT KAMI (OPTIONAL) 






By signing or initialling , I certify that: 



1 ) I am currently working at SFO. 

2 ) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 





SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 


COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 


2 Js^Wx^vS^kcr 

3) Qje,.*^ 

4) tfD./ir*^- 

5) / 




6) 


- 


7) 


- 


8) 


- 


9) 


- 


10) 


- 


11) 


- 


12) 


- 


13) 


- 


14) 


- 


15) 


- 


16) 


- 


17) 


- 


18) 


- 


19) 


- 


20) 


- 


21) 


- 


22) 


- 


23) 


- 


24) 


- 


25) 


- 


26) 


- 


27) 


- 


28) 


- 


29) 


- 


30) 


- 


31) 


— 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2 ) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR IN ITIALS COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 

2 ) OU uLuu bs^ - H^»c4r 

3 ) <Up*^J<j!yvtu*- - /r i>t$ 













13 ) Cu/-*- V^rwtJ •**■**» " SoS**^" 

14 ) 

15) 
16) 
17 ) 
18) 
19) 
20) 
21 ) 
22) 
23) 
24) 
25) 
26) 
27) 
28) 
29) 
30) 
31) 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 

2 ) <y*l*±Uj. &k 

6 ) ^>'/L >uC££t>l/ < — 



■> i 
10) 







r .K r li k" I I 



12) /t*M$ 

15 ) a©- MCoctXI 

16) 

17) 

18) 

19) 

20) s-i '<■--. 

21) 

22) 

23) 

24) 

25) 

26) 

27) 

28) 

29) 

30) 

31) 



COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 
I *&*£-" 

- "^ 



- «lc*i-| 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 

1) ^ft^UJh TS- - H t*.V Oju*T»\ Q«wu . &». — W ^U? £<•! 



4) 

5) 

6) 

7) 

8) 

9) 

10) 

11) 

12) 

13) 

14) 

15) 

16) 

17) 

16) 

19) 

20) 

21) 

22) 

23) 

24) 

25) 

26) 

27) 

28) 

29) 

30) 

31) 



3 )^STs^C^^S^ <^2e>^. & 



By signing or initialling 



I certify that: 



\ 



>w 



>- 



1) I am currently working at SFO. 

2) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 






n 



torn* L*bC- 



r .».- 



l) 

2) 
3) 

6) 

7) 

8) i-'eifi ^*. 

l o ) £»;>• . 

i4) ^V7 

15) Jfffrb* 

16) ^^vfcU.V_ 

\£?**^ 

23 



:**=? 



lei jSoMut^ 

JO) ' 
ID 



7 




COMPANY NAHB ( OPTIONAL ) 



or,- :'/tjiin'- 



- V.tJw-^ .' v < - 
IT 



- e, 

- £c> 

- a«- 

- <io 

~Cc 

- CO 

-c* 



*8 



..V h* 



U^'l>^ l C Q ( a ,^ la~,dt<*1 L< ,,_ -=?t5^^^ 



-s \ 



By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1 ) I am currently working at SFO. 

2 ) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 






1) 

3)< 

13' 
14 




COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 






V". 



- A** 



*~.s 




■ &' it 

■ noiC^ * 






By signing or initialling , I certify that: 

1 ) I am currently working at SFO. 

2 ) I would like to see 24 hour security guards at the 
employee parking lot. 

3) My signature or initials appear one time. 



SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 

4 ^^3ooJb^O^_ 





15)\£z±Jt< S^t— 

iB)~r 

19)^ 
20)_W5V-iL-*^ 

21) ; U^ 7 T^w 

22) / 
23) 
24) 
25) 
26) 
27) 
28) 
29) 
30) 
31) 
32) 



COMPANY NAME (OPTIONAL) 

- Ki>h>r 

- ustiiL 

- t " Ai#V 

- * 5 . *>*- 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT POLICE 

REPORTED CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 















MONTHLY 


1990/1991 


COUNTY CASE 1 


1281 


1988 


1989 


1990 


1991 


AVRG-1991 


X of CHAN 


CRIME REPORTS 
















FELONY 


1102 


1198 


1178 


1168 


1213 


101 


♦ 


MISDEMEANOR 


1007 


818 


859 


779 


860 


72 


+ 1 


INFORMATIONAL 


1055 


1606 


1526 


1466 


1795 


150 


+ 2 


MISC(5150) 


157 


161 


154 


118 


122 


10 


♦ 


SUPPLEMENTALS 


99 


100 


196 


250 


243 


20 


- 


STORED/IMPOUND VEH 


505 


485 


261 


201 


234 


19 


+ 1 


RECOVERED VEH 


77 


100 


95 


84 


102 


8 


♦ 2 


COURTESY REPORTS 


38 


29 


33 


49 


45 


4 


- 


TOTAL CRIME RPTS 


4040 


4497 


4322 


4115 


4614 


364 • 


+ 1 


CCURRENCE REPORTS 


902 


894 


870 


915 


662 


72 


a. 


ISCELLANEOUS REPORTS 


1212 


1244 


1061 


1040 


945 


79 


~ 


FHICLE ACCID RPTS 
















PROPERTY DAMAGE 


306 


328 


315 


304 


278 


23 


- 


PERSONAL INJURY 


74 


86 


67 


62 


63 


5 


+ 


3TAL REPORTS 


6534 


7049 


6635 


6436 


6762 


563 


♦ 


WESTS 
















FELONY 


52 


125 


91 


51 


70 


6 


♦ ; 


MISDEMEANOR 


196 


185 


184 


122 


132 


11 


4 


CITIZEN'S ARREST 


42 


53 


48 


46 


47 


4 


♦ 


WARRANT 


111 


177 


136 


147 


115 


10 


- 2 


DRUNK IN PUBLIC 


171 


188 


227 


154 


146 


12 


- 


DRUNK DRIVING 


29 


17 


26 


11 


11 


1 




PSYCH COMMITTAL 


157 


161 


154 


120 


121 


10 


+ 


1TAL ARRESTS 


748 


906 


866 


651 


642 


53 


— 


C TAT IONS 
















PARKING CITES 


26629 


30995 


28968 


30885 


27116 


2260 


- 1 


MOVING CITES 


1016 


1531 


1046 


1455 


1862 


155 


♦ 2 


TTAL CITATIONS 


27645 


32526 


30014 


32340 


28978 


2415 


m "l 


PEKING FACILITIES 
















CtMINAL INCIDENTS 
















SARAGE 


404 


382 


265 


271 


351 


29 


♦ 2 


.OT D 


185 


168 


212 


107 


115 


10 


♦ 


Ti'AL GAR/LOT D REPORTS 


650 


572 


594 


392 


466 


39 


♦ 1 



REPORTED CRIMINAL INCIDENTS 
STATISTICAL SUMMARY 















MONTHLY 


1990/1991 




1997 


1999 


. 1999 


1990. 


1991 


AVRG-1991 


X of CHANG 


THEFTS-PROP CRIMES 


595 


596 


645 


712 


651 


54 




GRAND THEFT 


- 7 


PETTY THEFT 


445 


405 


362 


426 


419 


35 


— 2 


LOST PROPERTY 


378 


638 


201 


218 


176 


15 


- 1£ 


FOUND PROPERTY 


36 


62 


116 


125 


124 


10 


- 1 


FRAUD/CHK-CRDTCRD-T I CK 


16 


17 


15 


22 


28 


2 


♦ 27 


POSSESS/STOLEN PROPERTY 


30 


20 


20 


17 


20 


2 


♦ 17 


BURGLARY 
















AUTO 


215 


220 


205 


186 


211 


18 


♦ 12 


BUSINESS 


41 


45 


44 


44 


46 


4 


♦ t 


STOLEN VEHICLE 


144 


176 


153 


142 


179 


15 • 


♦ 2e 


RECOVERED VEHICLE 


777 


100 


95 


84 


103 


8 


♦ 2: 


EMBEZZLED VEHICLE 


24 


30 


35 


54 


40 


3 


- 2f 


VANDALISM 


121 


101 


131 


101 


102 


8 


+ ' 


CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE 
















ROBBERY 


13 


7 


5 


5 


12 


1 


+ 14( 


ASSAULT/BATTERY 


70 


67 


86 


70 


67 


6 


• *.. 


ASSAULT/DEADLY WEAPON 


10 


15 


11 


6 


12 


1 


♦ 10C 


fcSSLT/BATT/POLICE OFC 


9 


9 


10 


4 


4 


.33 


( 


ASSLT/DEADLY WPN/OFC 








2 


1 








- 10C 


DISTURBING PEACE 


141 


145 


133 


98 


110 


9 


♦ i: 


3BSCENEAHRT PHONE CALLS 


21 


28 


17 


14 


26 


2 


♦ 6: 


.EWD CONDUCT 


12 


8 


7 


5 


11 


1 


+ 12C 


RESISTING ARREST 


23 


21 


25 


12 


9 


.75 


- 2? 


OTHER AIRPORT RELATED CRIMES 














IARCOTICS 


50 


55 


47 


27 


22 


2 


- 1! 


0MB THREATS 


50 


62 


39 


26 


44 


4 


♦ 6> 


lUSPICIOUS BAGS/PKGS 


86 


69 


128 


96 


177 


15 


+ 8- 


OLICITATION . 
















LIMO 


44 


18 


36 


54 


59 


5 


4 ■ 


OTHER 


26 


28 


42 


22 


40 


3 


♦ 8. 


ORONERS CASE 


1 


3 


5 


2 


5 


.40 


♦ 15' 


UVENILE RELATED RPT 


86 


85 


89 


88 


57 


5 


- 3 


OMESTIC VIOLENCE RPT 


17 


29 


29 


16 


16 


1 


» 


0MB DOG RELATED RPT 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


132 


209 


17 


♦ 5 


TU( Includes alsc rpts) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


333 


410 


34 


♦ 2 


3DGING AT AIRPORT 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


24 


12 


1 


- 5 


JSP CIRCUM RPT 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


147 


136 


11 


- 


tSSING PERSONS RPT 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


35 


35 


3 





S 1 o-fc c* 

jam 1969 



Cnae Code 



Location 



Be;. Date Tie* Property 



Valve 



10651 


eco eaploy dl 


190113 


0615 


cfcev caaaro 


7000.00 


10651 


gar 3 421 


690111 


1645 


toyo cehca 


6000.00 


IQBlr 


gar 3 dl6 


690126 


1640 


ford escort 




241/343 


gar 1 d 


190117 


0715 






273.5 tfoaestic 


eco long k4 


6901ft 


1917 






459 auto 


gar 5 blO 


890113 


0030 


stereo/briefcase 


1115.00 


4»avto 


gar 3 f30 


130113 


1257 


aoncy 


206.00 


459 auto 


■co long j4 


190125 


0445 


stereo 


750.00 


459 auto 


gar 1 al3 


130121 


1025 


parse 


196.00 


459 auto 


gar 2 f 


690107 


1100 


briefcase 


270.00 


459 auto 


■co long k3 


690124 


0600 


stereo 


500.00 


459 auto 


■co long 


690124 


1130 


stereo knobs 


25.00 


459 auto 


■co eaploy al 


630123 


1700 


parking pen it 


46.00 


459 auto 


gar 5 g 


690109 


0727 


stereo/cb 


1205.00 


459 auto 


gar 5 f 


690102 


2125 


radio 


650.00 


459 auto 


gar 3 f 3 1 


691221 


1000 


jacket /MindON 


625.00 


459 auto 


gar ja 


661230 


1500 


radio/caaera 


1450.00 


459 auto 


gar 2 b7 


690106 


1430 


door handle 


400.00 


459 auto 


gar 2 fiO 


690106 


2214 


caaera/aa] let/glass 


665.00 


459 auto 


gar 5 f 


690110 


1500 


binoculars/flashlt 


310.00 


459/10852/594o3 


gar 3 fcrS 


690106 


0700 


stereo/ grill 


65C'.00 


459/594 auto 


■co eaploy 


690117 


1000 


stereo 


1 ICO. 00 


459/594be auto 


gar 2 e25 


690114 


2320 


reg/dasn aount 


500.00 


467.1 


gar 5 f 


69010% 


2500 


hubcaps 


10C0.C0 


466/594 gate 


?ar 4 bC'Cth»4t 


6901 02 


2304 


parking fee/sateam 




496.1 


ec-j employ 


690128 


0145 


parking pen it 




594 auto 


gar 2 ct 


690102' 


1345 


antenna 


25. 00 


594 auto 


gar 4 e 


690120 


0930 


veniele fender 




602 ■« 1/602.4 


ga>- 1 d 


690113 


1930 






60*. 4 liao/5371 


gar 2 f 30 


690125 


1300 






addit/602WJ/602.4 


gar 


690113 


1900 






1/p 


gar- 3 


690123 


2300 


ccaouter 


SCO. Ov 


storeo 


par 4 ob 


6*0106 


0645 






ttorct) 


eco eaplev li 


690127 


1630 






supple/459 arte 


err eaploy 


690127 


1630 






suso cireun 


eco eaploy 


690119 


0050 







23712.00 



D 


fm 


a 

b 1969 


c»~ 


X rnes 




CriK Code 


Location 


Beg. Date 


Jim 


Property 


Value 


ioesir 


t*r 3 bJ2 


690223 


0300 


mss 4i4 




lOBlr 


far 1 bit 


690224 


1430 


brick regal 




459 auto 


far 3 a 


690215 


1550 


stereo 


1100.00 


459 auto 


ro employees 


890202 


1400 


stereo 


451.00 


459 auto 


|V 2 620 


690219 


1702 


caeawa/jkt 


900.00 


459/594 auto 


KO aaploy c£ 


690215 


1200 


stereo 


1900.00 


467.1 


Mr 


890216 


2315 


teg 


810.00 


467.1 


gar 1 dl5 


690216 


0900 


briefcase 


2260.00 


467.1 


|ar 1 c 


690203 


2230 


■etch/calculator 


1050.00 


467.1 


oar 4/5 cores 


890201 


0600 


telephones 


1200.00 


467.1 


nt gar 5 


690221 


1635 


briefcase 


9710.00 


466 


jar 1 caolot 


690213 


06O0 


briefcase 


100.00 


594 auto 


cat' 2 etc 


690207 


o&:o 


ven dxr 




594 auto 


gar 2 f29 


890220 


1200 


vehicle paint 




5?4 auto 


jar 4 f30 


890220 


1045 


vehicle paint 




594 auto 


gar 4 f29 


690216 


1615 


vehicle paint 




594a auto 


gar i d9 


690205 


1259 


tires 


•00. CO 


664/10851/459 auto 


gsr 4 g34 


850203 


0650 


gloves 


25.00 


EtOTM 


eco enjloy 


690220 


0945 






stored 


gar l exit 


890225 


1950 






stored 


ecc> ea:loy 


fi?.'ili7 


It'll 







r~/le>-te cd c*~irni 
march 1989 



In we C«Je 


Location 


tog. Date 


TlS* 


Property 


Value 


loesir 


eco long 


690&6 


1600 


audi 




toesir 


gar £' la 


690317 


1441 






I0B5£ 


gar la 


690323 


2033 


license plate 




10652 


oar* 


690306 


1347 


he plate 




459 auto 


eco employ 


6903*7 


1500 


stereo 


450.00 


459 auto 


■co long ti 


690310 


1700 


stereo 


700.00 


459 Mto 


•co long k6 


690321 


0655 


stereo 


600.00 


459 auto 


gar 3 t* 


690329 


2230 


stereo 


500.00 


459 auto 


gar 3d 


890324 


1645 


stereo 


1100.00 


487.1 


gar 1 cl4 


690316 


1115 


purse 


(74.00 


466 


gar 1 booth ie 


690327 


1300 


parking fee 


39.00 


466 


gar 1 dl7 


690323 


1400 


battery 


70.00 


594 auto 


gar 1 * 


890227 


1122 


paint 




594 auto 


gar 2 W 


690305 


1300 


ven door 


300. CO 


59* auto 


gar ' e 


690319 


1745 


trunk leek 


100. 00 


602.* lieo 


gar l dl5 


690310 


1656 






647i/W7c 


par core o 


690321 


164<s 






r/p 


gar l e 


890325 


1230 


oag; 




iUDC'und 


eco long 


690331 


1300 






tusp circun 


gar 1 cat lot 


690330 


1125 







r/lot d cr v- 
april 1989 



Cr it? CiOe 


Location 


Beg. Pat 


t IlK 


Property 


Value 


10651 


gat- to 


6**18 


0300 


M2d rx-7 


10000. OC 


1085lr 


gar 4 a5 


690421 


1450 


olas cut! 




10851r 


gar 3 a3 


690421 


1450 


hone pre! 




lOBSlr 


gar 3 f25 


890421 


1450 


volv m5 




I0851r 


gar 3 til 


690416 


1400 


cnev astro 




243a doeestie 


gar 4 nit 


090424 


1350 






459 auto 


gar 3 el 


69042c' 


0700 


stereo 


625. 0: 


453 auto 


ko long 


690422 


0730 


tfashooarC 


300.00 


459 auto 


gar 2 a5 


690*21 


1800 


Ming MinaoM 


ISO. CO 


459 auto 


ceo Mployte 


69041b 


0700 


NinooN/oastiocart! 


610. 0-i 


*59 MtO 


KO k-ng'.erni 


690325 


2500 


eospyter/oriefcese 


6833.00 


459 auto 


«"• 


890321 


2500 


■ooi le teleonone 




459 auto 


gar 5 a 


690407 


2030 


bap/chem 


6725. CO 


459 auto 


Ki CMloyee 


690413 


1020 


stereo 


KO.-/' 


-59 auto 


car i< e 


69040i 


1630 


raoio 


iso.o:' 


453 auto 


gar 5 e 


890417 


1630 


stereo/pnore/anp 


£910. CO 


*55 *ut:> 


par 2 : 


690412 


0830 


go if cluis 


5Vi ■'*' 


•459 auto/5:* 


eco eieioye* 


630*13 


13Ul 


stereo/ ebo let/ tire 


iSiJ.00 


*59/594 auto 


k» employee 


690413 


1000 


stereo 


«>j. rt 


♦67.1 


gar 3 l7d 


690330 


2030 


oag/passtort 


622.0.' 


487. 1 


gar t 


630303 


£5(0 


ceJluiar pfior* 


i >;-,.';:■ 


487. 1 


rar 1 fi6 


690414 


1210 


brtefcise/'cie 


665.(0 


487.1 


gar L t 


630420 


iei-0 


jn+et/Bcney 


*1J..0-J 


4e9 


ear ct ecfwtctr 


6"j04i0 


1100 


hi; 


:•::..:: 


tii 


garl 


e90<il6 


0300 


turning fes 


i ■. 


59t auto 


gar l ot 


630402 


££00 


Nino 


C'.\ . '. '. 


59«.a/240/24i 


IJi' 1 Cij ii't 


630*30 


J SO 


tire 


^*. 


agency assist 


5*r i 


SrWii 


i«0 







r~/ lo-fc 

My 



c* err- ± m< 
1989 



Criac Code 



Ucation 



kg. Date Tim Property 



Value 



10651 


ko longten 


890501 


1800 


volk rabbit 


8000.00 


10851 


Mr 5 b 


890527 


0130 


toyo supra 


15000.00 


lOSSlr 


tco longten 


890517 


1930 


cadi sevi 




toes 


■co Mploy 


890507 


2330 


license plates 




242 domestic 


Mr 4b 


190527 


2113 






459 auto 


•co aploy 


190425 


0700 


tlrt/tools 


480.00 


459 auto 


Mr 5c 


890502 


2150 


radio/cell ilar phn 


2150.00 


459 auto 


far 4 «24 


890506 


0845 


staTfo/vi ndoM 


750.00 


459 auto 


Mr 5f 


890510 


1200 


sterto/spMhtrs 


925.00 


459 auto 


•co eaploy 


890510 


2230 


stereo 


954.00 


459 auto 


■co aaployees 


890515 


2200 


speaker* 


800.00 


459 auto 


■co long f 1 


890519 


0830 


stereo 


440.00 


459 auto 


gar 3 b 


890527 


2000 


stereo/tv 


1825.00 


459/594 auto 


•co long 


890512 


1400 


instruaent panel 


480.00 


467.1 


eco eaploy a4 


890502 


0600 


hubcaps 


404.00 


417.1 


•co eaploy 


890511 


1000 


■icroNavc/ansHr ach 


440.00 


467.1 


gar 1 b? 


890519 


1845 


purse 


608.00 


487.1 


gar 1 a 


890524 


0300 


Mg 


605.00 


488 


•co long 


890516 


1600 


car cover 


150.00 


488 


gar 3 exit bth 


890520 


2245 


parking fees 


104.00 


488 


eco long 


890525 


1400 


louvre shade 


300.00 


5150 


gar 4 b 


890527 


2126 






537lpuc/148 


gar 2 e22 


890507 


1600 






594 auto 


gar 3f 


890426 


0700 


antenna 


150.00 


594 auto 


eco eaploy 62 


890508 


0500 


veh paint 


350.00 


594 auto 


gar 1 f 


890509 


1630 


veh paint 


600.00 


594 auto 


eco eaployees 


890509 


1430 


toyo etli 


500.00 


594 auto 


gar 4 b 


890510 


0720 


MindOM 


150.00 


594 auto 


eco eiploy d3 


890510 


0800 


van paint 


1500.00 


594 auto 


eco eaploy 03 


890512 


1000 


veh paint 


1500.00 


594 auto 


gar 1 b9 


890513 


1800 


NindON 


90.00 


594/884/459 auto 


•co eaploy b4 


890519 


0800 


window/stereo 


120.00 


847f/doaestic 


gar 1 a 


890526 


2337 






SUSP C1PCW 


gar 4 f27 


890430 


2500 


toyo cehca 




susp circua 


eco long 


890509 


0805 







37373.00 





QAT~/ 1 «=»-fc 


c* 


err~ i mess 






June 1989 






Crime Code 


Location 


Beg. Date 


Tiac 


Property 


Value 


10651 


|tr 5 f 


890530 


0645 


toy© celica 


12000.00 


10851 


ko aaploy 


890620 


1600 


hondaa/c 


9500.00 


10851 


•co eaploy 


890625 


1330 


pont trantaa 




10651r 


tar 5 a 


890617 


1000 






10851r 


gar 5g 


890627 


2030 


cadi fleet 




10851r 


■arSf 


890629 


1615 


toy© celica 




10851r 


far 4 bl2 


890613 


2225 


dodg daytona 




211 


tar 3b3 


890610 


1145 


purse 


450.00 


415 


gar 2 dl7 


890607 


1920 






459 auto 


eco eaploy 


890619 


0930 


stereo 


2600.00 


459 auto 


gar 5 a 


890616 


1330 


stereo 


1430.00 


459 auto 


gar 1 a5 


690606 


1200 


conv top/aoney 


1002.00 


459 auto 


oar 2 f31 


690612 


1200 


glasses/gloves/top 


1210.00 


459 auto 


gar 3 dl8 


890625 


1750 


stereo 


1900.00 


459 auto 


gar 3 t!5 


690625 


1955 


stereo/tiallet 


675.00 


459 auto 


gar 3 d 


690602 


2150 


parse 


160.00 


459 auto 


eco eaploy 


690611 


1730 


stereo 


325.00 


459 auto 


eco eaploy 


690626 


1250 


stereo 


1030.00 


459 auto 


eco employees 


690606 


0815 


t-top window 


2500.00 


459 auto 


gar 5 e 


690616 


2300 


stereo/speakers 


920.00 


459 auto/4M 


eco long 


690604 


1935 


radio knobs/hub cap 


205.00 


459/594 auto 


eco etploy 


690612 


1400 


stereo 


3220.00 


487.1 


aar 5 d 


690616 


1150 


bag 


2407.00 


467.1 


gar 5c 


690603 


1930 


suitcase 


4195.00 


467.1 


gar 4 


690616 


1150 


bag 


1175.00 


466 


gar 1 g 


690630 


0105 


aallet 


170.00 


5150 


gar 5 d 


690628 


1225 






594 auto 


eco eaploy 


690605 


0710 


vehicle paint 


600.00 


594 auto 


eco eaploy 


B90££6 


0600 


veh paint 


100.00 


5S4 auto 


gar 4 a 


690614 


0800 


buaper 


100.00 


534 aut: 


gar 3 c 


690610 


2240 


tire 


75.00 


594 auto 


gar 3 tZ 


690613 


1140 


MindOM 


300.00 


594 auto 


par £ f25 


690620 


0720 


fender guards 


100.00 


594a 


gar 1 b 


690603 


2145 


door lock 


50.00 


594a£ auto 


eco eaployees 


690607 


0710 


veh side 


550.00 


664/10651 


gar 4 21 


690612 


0900 


Mindoa/steering col 


300.00 


664/459/594 auto 


gar 2 e22 


890620 


0705 


door lock/veh paint 


1500.00 


f/p 


gar 5 d 


890626 


2045 


bag 


1666.00 


stored 


gar 4 exit 


690616 


1015 







July 19B9 



cr~ x m< 



Criae Code 


Location 


Beg. Dati 


• Tise 


Property 


Value 


10651 


tar 1 b8 


890702 


1203 


line cent 


20000.00 


10851 


ear I d 


890718 


1100 


buic skylark 


3000.00 


IMSlr 


tar 3cl4 


890708 


1100 


sitw balant 




IQBlr 


|ar 4 


190710 


1515 


dodg cara 




10B51r 


oar 3 die 


890728 


1240 


pont phoen 




459 auto 


•CO lor n 


890815 


1200 


caeles/flare/lstaid 


335.00 


459 auto 


W 


890712 


2500 


stereo/cassettes 




459 auto 


eco longtera 


890712 


2500 


stereo 




453 auto 


gar 5 a 


890717 


1124 


stereo 


1100.00 


459 auto 


gar 1 b6 


890726 


0700 


stereo 


4O0.00 


459 auto 


gar 2 


890727 


0937 


stereo/NindOM 


900.00 


459 auto 


ceo eeploy d2 


890723 


0515 


stereo/steering mM 


1665.00 


459/594 auto 


gar 3 b3 


890717 


1135 


stereo 


800.00 


459/594 auto 


gar 1 b5 


890722 


1000 


stereo 


500.00 


459/594 auto 


ro long dl 


890728 


0800 


stereo/Mind/heater 


750.00 


459/594 auto 


gar 2 b 


890727 


1557 


stereo 


300. 0) 


459/594 auto 


eco eiploy *3 


890729 


0945 


clothing/door handl 


635.00 


487.1 


gar 5 


890708 


1400 


suitcase 


2097.00 


487.1 


gar 5 e 


890721 


1900 


tire/rie 


450.00 


487.1 


gar *e 


890730 


1625 


purse 


840.00 


488 


gar 5 d 


890720 


1200 


tire/hubcaps 


300.00 


537a 


gar ent bth 


890617 


2500 


storage fees 


225.00 


537a 


gar 4 valet 


890710 


1334 


parking fee 


12.00 


594 auto 


gar 2 a 


890615 


2330 


vehicle paint 




594 auto 


gar 4d 


890715 


1500 


porsche 


250.00 


594 auto 


gar 4 valet 


890721 


2023 


Hind shield/keyhole 


75"). JO 


594 property 


gar * exit bth 


890720 


0816 


gate an 


20. 00 


664/245a 


gar t bio 


B9071B 


0004 






884/459 auto 


eco eeploy 


890704 


0930 


door 


560.00 


884/459 auto 


eco long 


890716 


0730 


sleeping bags 


300.00 


884/453 auto 


gar 5 a 


890717 


1122 


door handle 


350.00 


f/p 


gar 1 e 


890727 


1940 


paintings 




f/p suspicious object 


gar 5 b 


890728 


1300 






stored 


gar entrance 


890706 


0230 






supple-459 auto 


gar I b9 


890727 








vat ciraa 


gar 4 d 


890628 


0900 







august 1989 



Orim Code 



Location 



Beg. t*t* Tiee Property 



Value 



10851 
10851 
10651r 

lOtelr 
lOClr 
1085lr 
1065lr 
106Slr 

loesir 

1065lr 
lOBSlr 
10852 
211 
242 
242 

415. 1/2436/148 
459 luto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459/594 auto 
459/594 auto 
487.1 



far 1 *3 

far 3c 

■co storage lot 

far 1 dl4 

gar 1 nit 

|ar4 

tar 4 f30 

gar 4a 

gar 5a 

gar Sa 

gar 5b 

gar 3g 

gar 5 b 

gar 4 cash bth 

gar 5 

ceo longten 

too ee-ploy bl 

gar 1 

gar 2 b 

gar 2 b 

gar 2 bll 

gar 3 a3 

gar 3 b 

gar 3 blO 

gar 3 b6 

gar 3 d21 

gar 3b 

gar 5 a 

gar 5 b 

gar 5 c 

gar 56-c 

gar Sd 

gar 5d 

gar 5f 

gar 2 f 

gar 3 f30 

gar 5 



690628 


0700 


toyo p/u 


5000.00 


690601 


0730 


port 944 


23000.00 


690603 


0921 


dtry letoar 




690631 


1500 


ford tarns 




690615 


2300 


Mic skylark 




690625 


0330 


hytn eicel 




690623 


1430 


ford thwd 




690604 


1540 


hyun excel 




690623 


1430 


volk gti 




890604 


1640 


chev corvette 




690604 


1650 


plyi voy 




890713 


1000 


license plates 




890618 


2020 


air ticket s/aonry 


538.00 


690808 


2315 






890619 


1730 






690605 


2350 






690619 


1300 


stereo 


400.00 


890726 


1330 


briefcase 




690816 


0600 


stereo 


615.00 


690620 


0246 


MindoM 




690614 


1948 


stereo 


350.00 


890611 


22O0 


cellular phone 


3350.00 


690714 


0730 


stereo/antenna 


490.00 


89061B 


1430 


stereo/speakers 


2974.00 


890814 


1900 


veh door 


300.00 


890811 


1107 


sunglasses 


100.00 


890606 


1900 


car seats/tire/cap 


295.00 


690810 


1600 


gas cap/aindoM 


270.00 


890810 


1145 


stereo/backseat 


2800.00 


890819 


1645 


stereo/caacra/bag 


2350.00 


690617 


1300 


stereo 


660.00 


690603 


2016 


stereo 


750.00 


690603 


2000 


stereo 


150.00 


690603 


2045 


stereo 


450.00 


690624 


0600 


jacket/briefcase 


1262.00 


690625 


1100 


stereo/dashboard 


600.00 


690606 


1200 


cavra 


1146.00 



■es - page: 2 



f>>«» Code Location kg. Date Tie* Property Vali 

stored 
Mpele-*59 aeto 



•co eaploy d3 


190617 


1(20 


far 2 bll 


890614 


1945 


|*r h2 


690621 


1006 



5225.00 



s*pt 1989 



CriK Code 



Location 



Beg. Date Tim Property 



Value 



lOKlr 

ioes£ 

10652 

10652 

241a/243a 

2*2/59*4 gate en 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto/594 

459/594 auto 

459/594 auto 

476 

487.1 

407.2 

486 

486 

594 auto 

59* auto 

594 auto 

594bc property 

664/459 auto 

664/459 auto/594 

auto gas leak 

stored 

stored 

stored 

supple-459 auto 



eco long 
gar 1 b 
gar I «5 
gar 3 blO 
%»r 1 f 24 
gar 4 
gar 5 i 
gar 3 
gar 5 
gar 5 f 
gar 5 c 
gar 2 f30 
gar 5 d 
gar 2 b8 
■co longten 
gar 5 g 
eco eaploy a5 
gar 1 exit 
gar 4 valet 
gar lb elevator 
eco long 
gar 2 f 29 
gar 2e23 
eco long h4 
gar 3 
gar 3 b 
eco eaploy c2 
eco longten 
gar 1 b7 
eco eaploy 
gar 4dl6 
gar 1 b? 
eco long 



690922 

690910 
690924 
690909 
690924 

890901 
690917 
690902 

690921 
690915 
890920 
890929 
690915 
690910 
690907 
690927 
690922 
690914 
890928 
690831 
890910 
890920 
890925 
890913 
690925 
890929 
890925 
890907 
890915 
690909 
690919 
890915 
890910 



1420 
2000 

1600 
1300 
1515 
0119 
1730 
2500 
1030 
1430 
0750 
1800 
2300 
1400 
1600 
1713 
1440 
0650 
1200 
1815 
0215 
2255 
1112 
0750 
1725 
1200 
0630 
1030 
1620 
0200 
1200 
1821 
2335 



datson 260zi 
canopy bar 
license plates 



gate an 

stereo/suitcase 
golf clubs/clothes 
radio speakers 
stereo 

stereo 

sunglasses/book 
stereo/briefcase 
soft top/book 
5 vehicles 
stereo/dashboard 
stereo/MindOM 
20 dollar 
address book 
wallet 

parking fees 
checkbook 
veti paint 
veh paint 
veh side 
elevator buttons 
vind 
window 



300.00 
1500.00 

1000.00 

300.00 
300.00 
63.00 
335.00 
530.00 

1200.00 
2168.00 

20.00 
480.00 
200.00 

64.00 
100.00 

500.00 
2000. 00 
1000. 00 
500.00 
100.00 



seat/cooputer/dtns 4970.* 



18250.00 





Q»r~/ 1 o-t: 


cJ 


cr i m«-s 






oct 1989 






Crie* Code 


Location 


Beg. Date 


Tiae Property 


Value 


10651 


gar 5 


691012 


0600 Kb 


20000.00 


10651 


Mr 1 


691017 


1650 niss stanza 


10000.00 


1065lr 


far Sa 


691005 


1325 pont J2000 




ioesir 


par 4 


691009 


1540 hyun eicel 




10851r 


tco lonjtert 


691020 


1130 jag ij6 




ioesir 


•co longtera 


691020 


1215 niss sentra 




lOBSlr 


•co storage lot 


691030 


2300 aac jeep 




10652 


far 1 dl7 


890928 


0630 license plates 




113576/11384 


Mr 2bl7 


691006 


1400 




11364/*arrant 


gar 1 e 


691002 


1315 




459 auto 


•co employees 


891002 


0945 stereo 


1300.00 


459 auto 


par 3 b6 


891004 


0800 t-tops 


650.00 


459 auto 


gar 1 


691010 


0917 stereo 


1400.00 


459 auto 


gar Sa 


691011 


1930 stereo/speakers 


620.00 


459 auto 


gar 4 b 


691020 


1300 stereo 


700.00 


459 auto 


eco employees 


691021 


1730 stereo 


640.00 


459 auto 


gar 4 bS 


691026 


1943 stereo/jacket 


1610.00 


459 auto/594 


gar 3 e24 


690929 


0600 MindoM 


1100.00 


467.1 


gar 


690918 


1930 bags 


906.00 


467.1 


gar 2 


691006 


1400 purse 


410.00 


467.1 


•co long r5 


691022 


1300 tire/Mheel 


500. 00 


466 


ct gar 


690929 


1100 caaera 


350.00 


537 


st host hangar 


691015 


1815 food bill 


31.00 


594 auto 


gar 2 


690929 


1637 car doors/antenna 


1100.00 


594 auto 


gar 2 f31 


691005 


1600 vehicle 


1500. 0(' 


594 auto 


eco employees 


691011 


0500 MindOM 




594 auto 


gar Id 


891017 


1200 windON 


250.00 


stored 


gar 4 


691021 


1850 





43667.00 





Q«Y~/ 1 0"fc 


cJ 


cr~ 


i mes 






nov 1 989 








Criee Code 


Location 


Beg. Date 


TiK 


Property 


Value 


10851 


oar 4 f31 


091030 


2130 


volk bag 


5000.0 


108Slr 


ceo longtera 


891204 


2900 


ford ltd 




loesir 


gar 1 cl2 


891130 


2230 


chev 




lOfiSlr 


•co long 


891102 


1500 






lOtelr 


gar 3a 


891102 


1100 


■ittu iirage 




ioes 


■co nploy 3 


891102 


0600 


license plate 




11550/466 


gar 1 


891121 


1015 






12509evc 


eeo long 


891126 


1930 






459 auto 


gar 5b 


891125 


0900 


stereo/glasses 


540.00 


459 auto 


•co long 


891106 


0600 


stereo 


770. 00 


459 auto 


gar 1 cl2 


691029 


1700 


stereo 


745.00 


459 auto 


gar 2 e 


691107 


1300 


stereo/window 


925.0) 


459 auto 


gar 5 b 


891102 


1900 


turn signal/wiper 


300.00 


459 auto/594 


gar 2 


891127 


1940 


■inflow/ fenders 


1960.0 


459/594 auto 


gar 3 a5 


691102 


1105 


stereo 


600.00 


467.1 


gar 1 g 


891129 


1215 


briefcase 


530.00 


468 


gar 1 cablot 


691126 


1920 


Ml let 


66.00 


594 auto 


•co npioy 


691106 


2030 


vehicle paint 


750.00 


594 auto 


l*r 4a 


691123 


0600 


HirdOM 


200. 00 


594 auto 


gar 3 


891118 


0700 


vehicle 




594 auto 


gar 4 dl7 


691102 


1420 


vehicle pa:r.t 


BOO. 00 


664/1065! 


eco Kiolcy 


691102 


1420 


ignition/deer r.ndle 


1200. 


f/p 


gar 5a 


691115 


1320 


bag/clothir; 




susp circus 


gar 4 d 


e9llc2 


1700 







1*506.00 



B 


«*-/ lo-fc 


d 


cr* i mess 






dec 1989 








Criw Code 


Location 


leg. Date 


Tiee 


Property 


Value 


1 0-66/ 459 suspects 


tco eeployt* 


891229 


0110 






10750vc 


<co eaploy <4 


891207 


1954 






10651 r 


|*r 4 b£ 


891201 


1940 


«"t 




lOBSlr 


oar 3 f25 


891206 


1040 


dodge colt 




lOSSlr 


gar 4 valet 


891211 


1146 


nissan 300:* 




1065lr 


oar 4 f 25 


891214 


0930 


ford fest 




10851r 


gar 4 b£ 


891215 


1145 


recovered vehicle 




I0S5lr 


eco long 


891220 


1430 


chev corvette 




11357b 


gar 3 f26 


891211 


2040 






240/242 


gar 3 exit 


691223 


1245 






242 


gar 1 


891223 


1910 






453 auto 


eco long i4 


891130 


0930 


stereO 


950.00 


459 auto 


eco lcr.g jl 


631202 


0530 


stereo/knife 


690. 00 


459 auto 


gar 3b 


891204 


0628 


stereo 


450.00 


453 auto 


eco long i4 


691208 


1830 


stereo 


450.00 


459 auto 


eco long g3 


691206 


1630 


jewelry 




453 auto 


eco long i 13 


691206 


1500 


window 




453 auto 


eco longtem 


B912CS 


0600 


stereo 


450. (O 


453 auto 


eco longter* 


69122-4 


1700 


tv 


575. 00 


453 auto 


gar 3 


691225 


1500 


stereo 


£00.00 


453 auto 


gar 4 


691228 


2200 


stereo 


125-0.0 


48"". 1 


gar' 1 b 


891220 


1230 


purse/ticket/aoney 


735.00 


487. £ 


eco longte-* 


6912(>7 


1130 


Ml let 


125.00 


488 


eco lonctera 


891222 


1520 


headlight f>ase 


375. 00 


406 


gar £ f 


691231 


1656 


ear battery 


50. w 


«36/44£3/4iXX'a vc 


eco eiploy cl 


691214 


1200 


reg sticke- 




534 auto 


gar 1 s5 


891 12S 


0900 


vehicle pair.t 


2000. 


534 auto 


gar 3 


691214 


2500 


veh 




534 auto 


gsr 3 f 


631223 


1020 


hood logo 


300. CO 


inpound 


eco eaploy cl 


891214 


1200 






impounded 


eco eaploy a4 


891207 


2000 


ford galaxy 




security bream 


eco eaploy b3 


891209 


0012 


fence 




stored 


eco longtera 


691216 


2000 






susp circm 


gar 3 


891230 


0900 







Criae Cede 



nrnnwitnti 



code 9 


910315 


f/p 


910901 


i«pounded veh 


910305 


l/p 


911201 


*tolen vett 


9101U 


•tared 


910208 


•tortd 


910226 


stored 


910404 


stored 


910417 


stored 


910606 


•tortd 


910606 


stored 


910815 


stored 


910823 


stored 


910901 


stored 


911128 


stored 


911212 


stored 


911212 


stored 


911214 


susp circus 


910524 


sunt: 114 




>tels: 





Beg Date Tib* Location n/o 

1150 eco longtera suspicious briefcase 



1320 eco eapiovee 

0705 eco longtera 

1*15 eco longtera 

0600 eco longtera 

0150 eco longtera 

1035 eco eaploy 

0940 eco eaploy 

2115 eco employees 

1220 eco eaployee 

1500 eco iapound lot 

0840 eco longtera 

1250 eco employees 

0948 eco eaploy 

0915 eco eaployee 

1130 eco eaploy 

0930 eco eaploy 

2055 eco eaploy 

2500 eco longtera 



iapounded veh 



stolen veh 



valu> 

CEtzttEi: 



8300. ( 
8000. ( 



susp circua 



194JC 



sfia police 

lot d( employees longterm) criminal actvty 
jan-march 1992 



Criae Code 


Beg Date 


Tiae 


Location 


nnnimntttinui 


!::::::::::«:: 


HCtSK 


::::::tte::sti 


10651 


920129 


1500 


eeo 


long 


10651 


920219 


1445 


eco 


eaployee 


10651 r 


920125 


2000 


ace 


long 


10651 r 


920205 


1200 


eco 


longtera 


10651 r 


920210 


1300 


eco 


long 


273.6 


920316 


1420 


eco 


eaploy 


•59 auto 


911223 


1800 


eeo 


longtera 


45« MitO 


920116 


1430 


eco 


eaploy 


459 auto 


920119 


0710 


eco 


long 


459 auto 


920130 


0930 


eco 


eaploy 


459 auto 


920206 


0930 


eco 


eaploy 


4S9 auto 


920216 


1500 


eco 


eaploy 


459 auto 


920323 


0700 


eco 


eaploy 


464 


920318 


1700 


eco 


eaploy 


487.1 


920318 


1400 


eco 


eaploy 


467.1 


920319 


2000 


eco 


long 


488 


911224 


2000 


eco 


long 


488 


920213 


1100 


eco 


long 


594 auto 


920111 


1000 


eco 


long 


594 auto 


920206 


0530 


eeo 


eaploy 


594 auto 


920310 


1200 


eco 


longtera 


594 auto/10652 


920319 


0710 


eco 


eaploy 


herasseent 


920216 


0015 


eco 


eaploy 


Stored 


920103 


1205 


eco 


longtera 


Stored 


920326 


1934 


eco 


eaploy 



H/0 



nmmitinmi 



stolen veh 

stolen veh 

recovered veh 

recovered veh 

recovered veh 

violates stay away order 

breaks window/takes p ho n tl c aacorder 

pries wing window/takes park pera 

pries window/takes stereo 

breaks window/takes parking pera 

pries door/takes park pera 

breaks window/takes radioitool kits 

enters locked veh/takes perkpera 

takes tire froa parked veh 

takes tires 

takes tires froa parked veh 

takes hubcaps froa parked veh 

takes hub caps 

breaks window 

scratches paint on veh 

cuts conv roof 

tekes gas eap door/license plate 

harasses victia verbally 



value 

ctccxst 

9000.0 



2050.0 

150.00 

450.00 

46.00 

34.00 

475.00 

46.X 

200.00 

400.00 

3000.0 

50.00 

50.00 

150.00 

1500.0 

1000.0 



25 



18605 



sfia police 

lot d( employ eeilongterin) criminal actvty 
1990 



Beg Date Tie* Location 



10851 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 
10651 r 
10651r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651 r 
10651r 
10651r 
10651r 
10B51r 
10652 
10652 
10652 
12677pc 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 
459 auto 



900215 
900322 
900425 
900621 

900719 
900630 

900910 
900910 
900921 

901011 
901115 
901128 
901130 
900215 
•900215 
900215 
900314 
900315 
900626 
900821 
900926 
900926 
901025 
901101 
901105 
901115 
901204 
901213 
900310 
900509 
900825 
900706 
891224 
900118 
900125 
900125 
900203 
900207 
900302 
900308 
900405 
900502 
900506 
9007D2 
900705 
900705 



1545 
1900 
1300 
0940 
1635 
1435 
1700 
2130 
2000 
1330 
1120 
0600 
0830 
1230 
1300 
1300 
1225 
1120 
1500 
1230 
1418 
1417 
1154 
1150 
0930 
1500 
1530 
1300 
0700 
1600 
0045 
0030 
2230 
0800 
1000 
0115 
0627 
1230 
1500 
1830 
2400 
2900 
1600 
1700 
0630 
1600 



ceo eaployees 
•co eaploy r21 
•co Mploy 
•co long 
•co eaploy 
•co eaployee 
•co eaploy 
•co Mploy 
•co Mploy a3 
•co aaploy c2 
•co aaploy c2 
•co long 
•co Mploy 
•co longtera 
•co longtera 
•co longtera 
•co longtera 
•co longtera 
•co long 
•co long h5 
•co long h4 
•co long 15 
•co longtera 
•co long 
•co long 
•co long 
•co long 
•co long 
•co MployM* 
•co Mploy c3 
•co Mploy 
•co eeployMS 
•co longtera 
eco MployMS 
•co MployMS 
•co employees 
•co longtcra 
•co MployMS 
•co longtcra 
•co longtcra 
eco long c 
•co longtcra 
•co longtcra 
•CO eaployeet 
•co longtcra 
eco longtera 



n/0 

:e:::ri:rtcEE£=:i::::iti::::tEE:r:r::::: I::: .. :IIIIE 

stolen vch 
stolen vehicle 
stolen vehicle 
stolen veh/aotorcycle 
stolen vehicle 
stolen vch 
stolen vch 
stolen vch 
stolen vehicle 
stolen vehicle 
stolen vehicle 
stolen vehicle 
stolen vehicle 
recovered vch 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered vehicle 

recovered vehicle 

recovered vehicle 

recovered veh 

recovered vehicle 

recovered vehicle 

recovered vehicle 

recovered vehicle 

recovered vehicle 

stolen plates 

takes tires froa parked vehicle 

takes license plate oft parked vehicle 

pott of illegal fireworks 

enters veh no force/takes stereo 

prys wing window/takes parking pereit 

breaks driver window/takes tapes 

breaks into locked veh/takes portable radiotcoat 

enters locked vch no force/takes car phone 

breaks rear wing window/takes coattooots 

punches lock/rips conv top/takes stereoispeakers 

breaks window/takes stereo 

slips lock/take* tools 

enters locked veh/takes jacket-fit bag-transceiver 

breaks r/wing window/takes steering coluan panel 

breaks window/takes stereo speakers 

breaks window/takes casMttes 

breaks rtar window/takes iuitf«t»«^vi»' ft»Tctr 



veu 

BXttt: 

4000 
1500C 
5000 
9000 

7500 
7000. 
5000 
1200C 
8000 
7500 
1200C 
2000. 



1050. 



160.0 
48.0 
235.0 
350.0 
600.0 
800.0 
964.0 
1000.. 
372. ft 
719.0 
80 
325. ft 
420. ft 



Cm ae Cod* 


Beg. Date 


Tiae 


Location 


Iilin:iii:ci::li«t5:iii:i"t="«i 


tUMW 


cam 


IKKItBKEKBl 


459 auto 


900706 


1500 


•CO 


longtera 


459 auto 


9O0710 


0700 


eco 


eaployee 


459 auto 


900715 


1200 


•CO 


eaployee 


459 auto 


900715 


0600 


eco/eeploy b2 


459 auto 


900722 


1345 


•CO 


•■ploy b5 


459 auto 


900731 


1000 


•CO 


••ploy bl 


459 auto 


900816 


1100 


• CO 


eaployee* 


459 auto 


900625 


1020 


•CO 


long 


459 auto 


900919 


1230 


•CO 


••ploy d 


459 auto 


901011 


0530 


•CO 


•■ploy 


459 auto 


901021 


0500 


•CO 


long 


459 auto 


901022 


0540 


•CO 


•■ploy g5 


459 auto 


901025 


0600 


•CO 


longtera 


459 auto 


901026 


1300 


•CO 


•aployee* 


459 auto 


901026 


1745 


•CO 


longtera 


459 auto/594b3 


891218 


1100 


MS 


longtera 


459 euto/664/10851 


900214 


1330 


•CO 


eaployee* 


459/594 auto 


900706 


1130 


•CO 


long ql 


459/594 auto 


901016 


1845 


•CO 


eaploy d3 


459/594 auto 


901019 


1320 


•CO 


•■ploy bS 


459euto/273a/2800/l4601 


900804 


1746 


•CO 


eaployee 


487.1 


891227 


2130 


•CO 


longterabu* 


487.1 


900220 


1215 


eco 


employees 


487/594 auto 


900509 


1445 


•CO 


eaploy 


488 


891226 


0900 


•CO 


longtera 


488 


900213 


05X 


• CO 


eaployee* 


488 


900404 


1700 


•CO 


eeploy g4 


488 


900405 


2045 


•CO 


long booth 


488 


900415 


0700 


•CO 


eeploy 


488 


900531 


2030 


eco 


eaployee 


488 


900705 


2000 


eco 


longtera 


488 


900731 


1100 


eco 


longtera 


488 


901219 


1118 


eco 


longtera 


594 auto 


900207 


2100 


eco 


employees 


594 auto 


900216 


2300 


•CO 


longtera 


594 auto 


900225 


1530 


eco 


eaployee 


594 auto 


900225 


2045 


•CO 


longtera 


594 auto 


900331 


0930 


• CO 


e«ploy 


594 auto 


900509 


1000 


•CO 


eaploy b3 


594 auto 


900728 


1515 


•CO 


eeploy d2 


594 auto 


901024 


1300 


•CO 


longtera 


594 auto 


901029 


0930 


•co 


eeploy 


594b auto 


900304 


1300 


•CO 


eaployee 


664/10851 


900317 


1700 


•CO 


eeploy c2 


664/10851 


900910 


1530 


•CO 


eeploy d2 


664/459/594 auto 


900331 


1730 


•CO 


eeploy c3 


664/459/594 auto 


901020 


2030 


•CO 


eaploy 


impounded 


901128 


1700 


•co 


eeploy 


stored 


900126 


OPOO 


tea 


eaployee* 



H/0 



break* window/ransacks/takes nothing 100.00 
break* window/attaptt to pry cassette /takes nothng 

enters locked veh no 'force/take* stereo 500.00 

enters veh no force/take* parking perait 48.00 

break* l/wing wind/take* speakers 250.00 

breaks r/wind/teke* stereo 1000.0 

breaks window/takes rediolphn pager 410.00 

enters veh no force/takes stereo/sunglasses 320.00 

•lips r/door lock/takes stereo 503.00 

enters veh no force/takes parking perait 30.00 

enters vehicle no force/takes stereo 2263.0 
breaks l/wind/tekes sunglasses/bends radio cover 555. 00 

punches trunk lock/takes backpack 640.00 
breaks window/takes rag 

breaks window/takes radio 550.00 

breaks window/takes 2 front seats 1200.0 

breaks window/taeper* ignitn/takcs leather coat 1550.0 
cuts convertible top/unlcks door/takes aoney/eover 1266.0 

enters vehicle no force/take* stereo 400.00 

breaks l/wind/take* stereo/baseball equip 1658.0 
breaks window/takes speaker* 

takes suitcase 1500.0 

takes unattended bag* 1385.0 

takes hub caps froa parked veh/dent* r/fender 675.00 

takes betterylgat froa parked veh 110.00 

takes reg froa plate of parked veh 27.00 

takes perait froa unlocked trunk of parked veh 48.00 

drives out w/o paying parking fee 104.00 

takes car cover off unattended parked veh 159.00 

takes cover off parked veh 130.00 

leaves lot without paying 120.00 
takes bag 

drives off without paying parking fee 96.00 

spray paints side of vehicle 1500. C 

breaks drivers window 200.00 

breaks front headlights 294.00 

saeshes airror-heed lights-tail light* 700.00 

breaks l/window 170.00 

sprays corosive liquid on veh/punctures tire* 550.00 

strikes veh headlight with haaaer 30.00 
scratches paint 

scratches l/side of veh with sharp object 150.00 

breaks lights/deaages doors 1500.0 
wandering lot /veh found v/daag steer colan/unlcked 

breaks r/wing wind/punches ignition lock 200.00 
breaks l/door/pries off door handle/nothing taken 300.00 

pries/breaks l/wing wind/nothing taken 300.00 



sfia police 

lot d(employee&longterm) criminal actvty 
1991 



Cnae Code 

ttt:::sc:tit 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10651 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 

10851 r 

10851r 

10851 r 

10851r 

10851 r 

10851r 

10851 r 

10851 r 

10851 r 

10851 r 

10851 r 

10851 r 

10851r 

10851r 

108S1r 

10852/488 

240/242 

243.3 bus 

245* 

4462b eve 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

4S9 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 

459 auto 



Beg. Date Tiae Location 



910214 
910218 
910228 
910302 
910315 
910403 
910415 
910624 
910727 
910815 
910818 
910821 
910827 
910827 
910907 
910909 
910407 
910426 
910523 
910628 
910628 
910628 
910905 
910915 
910924 
910924 
910925 
911114 
911115 
911212 
911216 
910919 
910808 
910506 
910107 
911214 
910119 
910123 
910216 
910304 
910314 
910503 
910531 
910613 
910712 
910725 



1300 
1130 
1330 
2500 
1745 
1600 
0430 
2330 
0530 
2300 
1630 
2500 
1030 
1615 
1700 
1800 
2130 
1530 
1240 
1235 
1200 
1130 
1109 
1313 
1100 
1230 
0700 
1500 
1515 
0825 
1215 
2300 
1855 
1503 
2341 
0800 
1700 
0600 
0700 
0800 
1900 
1900 
1800 
1900 
1100 
1415 



•co eaployee 
•co eaployccs 
•co •aployee* 
•co •aployces 
•co aaploy**» 
•co eaployes 
•co eaployee 
•co ••ploy*** 
•co longtcra 
•co eaployccs 
•co employees 
•co longtcra 
♦co eaployccs 
•co *aploy*c 
•co *aploy*e 
•co eaploy»cs 
•co eaploy 
•co longtcra 
•co longtcra 
•co longtcra 
•co longtcra 
ceo longtcra 
ceo longtcra 
ceo eaployccs 
ceo long 
ceo long 
ceo long 
ceo longtern 
ceo storage 
ceo caploy 
ceo lapound lot 
ceo caployce 
ceo eaployeet 
ceo longtcra 
ceo eaployccs 
ceo caploy 
ceo longtcra 
ceo caploy 
•co lot d iapnd 
ceo caploy 
•co longtcra 
•co longtcra 
•co eaployccs 
•co eaployee 
•co longtcra 
•co caployce 



stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen v*h 
Stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolon veh 
stolon veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
stolen veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 
recovered veh 

recovered veh 

recovered veh 

takes tire froa veh 

pushes victias head 

punches shuttle bus driver in nose 

strikes vict froa behind with blunt object 

false display of registration 

enters locked veh no force/takes cd player 

breaks r/wind/takes stereo 

enters locked veh no force/takes radiottools 

pries windoWransaeks actor ho** 

cuts conv top/takes briefcase 

breaks window/takes cd player 

pries wing window/takes steering wheel 

breaks window/takes park pera I coaa book 

breaks r/wing window/takes car phoneicoeputer 

forces wing window/takes park pera 



Value 

cuter 

5000. C 

14000. 
3000. C 
22000 

7000. C 
8000. C 
14000. 
11000. 
700. 0C 
27000. 
10000 
600. OC 
6000. C 
14000 
1200. C 
2000. C 



150. OC 



627. OC 
379.X 
500. 0C 

985.00 

989.00 
350.00 
234.00 
2049.0 
134.00 



Beg. Date Tiae Location 



H/0 



Value 



459 auto 


910726 


1530 


eeo longtera 


459 auto 


910608 


0520 


eco eaployee 


459 auto 


910822 


1300 


eco longtera 


459 auto 


91082B 


0730 


eco longtera 


459 auto 


910918 


1500 


eco eaployee 


459 auto 


911009 


1900 


eco eaploy 


459 auto 


911014 


1300 


eco eaployee 


459 auto 


911027 


2230 


eco eaploy-c 


459 auto 


911220 


2020 


eco longtera 


459 auto 


911227 


2215 


eco eaploy 


459 auto/10852/273.6 


910718 


1700 


eco longtera 


459 auto/4996 


910408 


1340 


eco eaployees 


459 auto/594 


910823 


0649 


eco longtera 


459 auto/664/10851 


910719 


0845 


eco eaployee 


459 euto/664/10851 


910719 


1300 


eco caployees 


459 euto/664/10851 


910719 


1530 


eco longtera 


484 


910801 


2500 


eco longtera 


487.1 


901206 


1330 


eco eaployee 


487.1 


910604 


2053 


eco longtera 


487.1 


911205 


1545 


eco longtera 


488 


910109 


0745 


eco longter* 


488 


910123 


2325 


eco long exit 


488 


910211 


1445 


eco eaployees 


468 


910308 


1730 


eco longtera 


488 


910415 


0700 


eco longtera 


488 


910428 


0445 


eco eaployees 


488 


910702 


0606 


eco longtera 


488 


910704 


1445 


eco eaployee 


488 


910715 


1430 


eco longtera 


488 


910720 


1020 


eco eaployees 


488 


910921 


1545 


eco eaployee 


488 


911113 


1000 


eco eaployee 


488 


911115 


2500 


eco longtera 


594 auto 


910105 


1745 


eco longtera 


594 auto 


910218 




eco longtera 


594 auto 


910227 


1130 


eco eaploy 


594 auto 


910322 


0545 


eco longtera 


594 auto 


910422 


1430 


eco eaployee 


594 auto 


910716 


1330 


eco eaployee 


594 auto 


911001 


1600 


eco eaploy 


594 auto 


911018 


0730 


eco eaploy 


594*3 auto 


910311 


1445 


eco eaploy 


594b *uto/653a 


910713 


2200 


eco eaployees 


594b4 auto 


911111 


1000 


eco eaployee 


664/10651 


910916 


2200 


eco eaployee 


664/10651 


910918 


2130 


eco eaployee 


664/459 auto 


911212 


1130 


eco longtera 


code 9 


910120 


1330 


eco longtera 


code 9 


910226 


0845 


eco longtera 



keyslip/tekes watch 

keyslip/takes radio 

breaks window/takes begtspeakers 

keys Up /takes radio 

pries door /takes wallet 

enters locked veh no force/takes park pera 

punches door lock/takes park pera 

enters locked veh no force/takes park pera 

brakes window/takes nothing 

punches door lock/takes tools 

reaoves lug nuts/enters locked veh/takes perait 

enters veh w/aaster key/takes aoney/joyrides 

enters locked veh no force/takes radioispeakers 

pries door/brks steering colan/att theft of veh 

keys lip/punches ign lock/att to steal veh 

att to start veh 

takes ehkbks 

enters unlocked veh/takes t-tops-stereo-speaker 

takes cell phone 

takes unatt briefcase 

refuses to pay parking fees 

drives thru parking gate ara w/o paying fees 

takes 4 hub caps 

takes hood ornttrunk insignia 

takes bag 

takes park pera froa veh 

takes car cover froa parked veh 

takes peraitltapes froa unlocked veh 

takes hubcaps froa parked veh 

reaches into veh/takes park permit 

siphons gas froa parked veh 

takes park pera froa unlocked veh 

takes wallet froa unlocked veh 

breaks plastic around steering eoluan 

scratches veh 

slashes vict tires 

tears fenders of veh 

saashes windshield 

slashes tires 

puts foreign agent on veh 

slashes tire 

•crews bolt into tire 

vandalizes veh/aakes threatening calls 

daaages paint of veh by egging 

attapts auto theft 

atteapted auto theft 

breaks window/takes nothing 

suspicious bag 

suspicious suitcase 



600.X 

300.00 

1600.0 

500.00 

51.00 

48.X 

45.X 

45.X 

780.X 
73.X 
2.X 
26X.0 
2080.0 
SX.X 



3620.0 
27X.0 
4070.0 
9.X 
178.X 
280.X 

250.X 
50.X 
130.X 
120.X 
1X.X 



48.X 

10.X 

IX. X 

6X.X 
21X.0 
10X.0 



51.X 

91.X 

1025.0 



150.X 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



rUNE 2, 1992 



DEPO 

JUN 2 6 1992 

PUBt 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










June 2, 1992 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



Regular meeting of 

May 5, 1992 92-0165 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

BART 

E. POLICY: 



Reimbursement Policy for Airlines 

Required to Move to New 

International Terminal 92-0166 3-4 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 



2. 


Noise Insulation Funding for 


92-0167 






South San Francisco 


92-0168 


4 


3. 


Lease of a Portion of Plot 1 








to United Airl ines, Inc. 


92-0169 


4-5 


4. 


Modification of Financial 








Advisor Contract 


92-0170 


5 


5. 


Addition to the Five-Year 








Capital Projects Plan 


92-0171 


5-6 


6. 


Contract 3040 - Remediations 







& Improvements 1991-92 - Type 

II Modification 92-0172 

Professional Services - Site 

History, Analysis & 

Remediation 92-0173 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

8. Seismic Safety Retrofit Program 92-0174 

9. Assignment of Public Lockers & 
Over -the-Counrer Lease between 

Amlock Inc. I Smarte Carte Inc. 92-0175 



10. 


Bid Call - Contract 3151 - 
Tunnels A & C Leakage Repair 


92-0176 


7 


11. 


Mod. of Contract 2202 - Water 
Quality Control Plants Sludge 
Beds 


92-0177 


7 


12. 


Travel/Training - 1991/92 


92-0178 


7 


13. 


Resolution Ratifying Personnel 







Actions 92-0179 7 

H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

14. Amendments & Additions to Airport 
Rules & Regulations Including 
Changes to Permit Regulations 
Governing Limousine Operations 7-8 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 8 

J. NEW BUSINESS: 

EIR 8-15 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 

Litigation: EIR and Water Quality 

Control Board; Personnel Matters 15 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 15 



Minutes, June ?, W2. Page ? 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 2, 1992 

CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
James K. Ho 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 19, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0165 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Murphy reminded Mr. Turpen that he requested an estimate of 
the cost of the through-the-term1nal and on to the South route for BART. 



E. POLICY: 

Item no. 1 was adopted unanimously. 

1 . Reimbursement Policy for Airlines Required to Move to the New 
International Terminal 

No. 92-0166 

Mr. Turpen said this Item sets forth a policy to reimburse airlines 
as part of the Airport-wide relocation, particularly with respect to 
international carriers. This policy has been discussed and debated 
with the International carriers for at least two years. It comes to 
the Commission as an agreed-upon procedure and methodology for 
relocation. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that it has a retroactive January 1, 1991 
date. He asked if staff had a ballpark cost. 



Minutes, June 2 '992. Page 3 



Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, said 
that the Commission has acknowledged two requests thus far. One was 
for the Foreign Flag Corporation for $400,000 and the other was for 
Japan Airl ines . 

Mr. Turpen said that those were Commission actions with a recognition 
of this policy. 

Commissioner Murphy noted that this was operative If, and only If, 
there is a new International Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was correct. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Items no. 2 was adopted unanimously. 

2. Noise Insulation Funding for South San Francisco 

No. 92-0167 Resolution committing $870,000 for 

noise insulation in So. San Francisco. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this item continues the insulation program 
begun by the Commission some years ago. This sum 1s based on two 
amounts ... about $250,000 is for home insulation In So. San 
Francisco, the remaining sum is for the high school facilities. This 
is part of the continuing Federal program which provides 80% of the 
funds with 201 Airport match. 

Commissioner Mattlson asked if these were budget estimates. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this was the actual amount requested by So. 
San Francisco. He said that 1993/94 would be the impact years for 
these dollars. 



Item no. 3 was adopted unanimously as amended. 

3. Lease of a Portion of Plot 1 to United Airlines, Inc. 

No. 92-0169 Resolution approving the lease for 

approximately 10.9 acres of Plot 1 to 
United Airl Ines, Inc. 

Mr. Turpen explained that Plot 1 is a former Pan Am leasehold 
adjacent to the Airport Hilton. It was acquired by United Airlines 
as part of their acquisition of the Pan Am/London routes. The lease 
expired and United has expressed an interest in continuing on the 
leasehold. The lease before the Commission is for four months and 
would then continue on a month-to-month basis to leave the Airport's 
options open as we move into the planning cycle. United has not yet 
negotiated the lease. They have expressed some concern about the 
term and other issues. 

Mr. Turpen asked the Commission to authorize Mm to execute this 
lease only if United provides an executed copy by June 15. 

Commissioner Mattison asked how the negotiations for Plots 4 and 5 
went and how they tied into this. 



Minutes, June 2. 1992, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen responded that all negotiations are on hold. Plot 4, 5 
and 6 leases expire November 30, 1993. Looking at United's 
requirements for replacement facilities it would appear that there is 
very little value in that land for the Airport in advance of that 
date. United has agreed, informally, to put negotiations on hold and 
Instead concentrate on the phasing and turn over on a case by case 
basis in order to meet the deadlines that would be appropriate to 
their replacement facilities. He said this one would be taken care 
of as is but we will not get into a combined package because there is 
so little value left in any of their existing leases that there would 
be very little the Airport could offer in the way of consideration. 

Commissioner Mattison assumed that United was well aware of the phase 
requirements. 

Mr. Turpen said United is well aware of the phasing requirements and 
they are in constant contact with our planning people as well. He 
does not think there is any lack of communication between the two 
groups. We are clearly committed to taking care of their needs. We 
want them to continue as an efficient operation from a passenger 
services standpoint. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if United has conceded the point of law 
on the option renewal. 

Mr. Turpen responded that United has agreed to sign a new lease. 

Mr. Turpen asked that the resolution be amended by changing the date 
to close of business June 15. 



Item nos. 4 through 7 were adopted unanimously. 

4. Modification of Financial Advisor Contract 

No. 92-0170 Modification of contract with Lazard 

Freres & Co. and Grlgsby Brandford & 
Co. 

Ms. Gittens explained that In anticipation of the EIR being certified 
and the master plan itself being approved 1n the next couple of 
months, we are trying to get a jump on the financing of items, the 
first being to authorize additional funds for the financial advisors 
and extending their term. 

Ms. Gittens said she 1s very pleased with the output, cooperation and 
results of the current financial advisory team and would like to 
continue. 

Commissioner Murphy asked what happens If we don't proceed with the 
master plan. He said he was not suggesting that that was where he 
was. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the fees are demand driven. This also 
includes a refunding. 



Additions to the Five-Year Capital Projects Plan 

No. 92-0171 Resolution approving the addition of 

two communications projects to the 
Five-Year Capital Projects Plan. 



M nutes. June 2. 1992. Page 5 



Mr. Turpen explained that pursuant to the Airline Lease and Use 
Agreement the airlines approved a PBX upgrade and fibre optic cable 
network at their May 6 Airport-Airline Affairs Committee meeting. 

Commissioner Mattlson asked if the initial Installation and 
engineering was a pilot test of this system and If this is now the 
full-blown installation. 

Mr. Dennis Boury, Deputy Direction of Facilities Operations and 
Maintenance responded that this is not full-blown but simply a gap 
between the Airport and tenant's pilot projects to see if they will 
work better. Concurrent with this the Airport is preparing the RFP 
for telecommunications study. As a result of that we will then have 
a full-blown fibre optic network. 

Commissioner Mattlson noted that the pay-back analysis looked pretty 
good. It looks like smart money. 



Item nos. 6 and 7 were called together and adopted unanimously. 

6. Contract No. 3040 

Remediations and Improvements 1991-92 - Type II Modification 

No. 92-0172 Resolution to increase the contract 

amount by $250,000.00 for Type II 
Modification. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is a continuation of an existing contract 
to Increase the amount. This contract 1s used to analyze Airport 
environmental conditions, particularly with tenant relocations and 
tenant terminations. The Airport has had a long-standing policy of 
not getting into long term leases. He are coming to the end of a 
number of leases, the most recent one being Plot 1. As part of the 
Airport's Tenant Improvement Guide we require that all sites be 
environmentally evaluated and remediated. This contract continues 
that work. He said that because of the number of sites that will be 
coming up, this Item and agenda Item No. 7, which 1s an RFP for a 
future follow on a standing contract to have expertise available as 
these leases expire, should be approved. 

Commissioner Mattlson asked Mr. Turpen If it was his view that United 
has assumed Pan Am's liability In this regard. 

Mr. Turpen responded that 1t is. 

Commissioner Mattlson asked If it was Unlted's view as well. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he was not certain but it was clearly the 
view when they acquired the site. That was one of the questions we 
had at the time. It Is our view that United has the responsibility. 
Much of this Is a question of timeliness. Before releasing a site to 
another tenant we want to ensure that problems are addressed. 

Mr. Turpen said that as there are several long term leases coming up 
it is appropriate to have this type of capability on board. 



7. Professional Services - Site History, Analysis and Remediation 

No. 92-0173 Proposal for services regarding site 

history, analysis and remediation 
plans for Airport construction site. 

Minutes. June 2, 1992. Page 6 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
Item nos. 8 through 13 were adopted unanimously. 



8. Seismic Safety Retrofit Program 
No. 92-0174 



Resolution authorizing the Director to 
enter into agreement with the 
Department of Transportation, State of 
California, for the State's Seismic 
Safety Program. 



9. Approval of Assignment of Public Lockers and Over-the-Counter Lease 
between Amlock, Inc. and Smarte Carte, Inc. 

No. 92-0175 



10. Bid Call - Contract 3151 

Tunnels "A" and "C" Leakage Repair 



No. 92-0176 



Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for Contract No. 3151 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



11. Modification of Contract No. 2202 

Hater Quality Control Plants Sludge Beds 



No. 92-0177 



Resolution approving the adoption of 
Type 11 Modifications to Contract No. 
2202 in the amount of $37,810.00. 



12. Travel/Training - Fiscal Year 1991/92 
No. 92-0178 



13. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 



No. 92-0179 



Resolution, in accordance with the 
requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was convened at 9:15 AM and recessed at 9:17 AM, there 
being no requests to speak from the public. The public hearing was 
continued to the June 16, 1992 Airports Commission meeting. 

Minutes, June 2. } 992 , Page 7 



14. Amendments and Additions to the Airports Rules and Regulations 
Including Changes to the Permit Regulations Governing Limousine 
Operations 

Commissioner Murphy said he received a letter from the United Taxicab 
Workers requesting the hearing be continued. He said he would like 
to honor that request with one caveat ... those who have attended the 
meeting today to address the Commission should be allowed to do so 
but the public hearing would be carried over to the next meeting to 
give the United Taxicab Workers, as well as anyone else, additional 
time to prepare. 

Mr. Turpen agreed. 

Commissioner Murphy said he has not received any requests to speak on 
this matter. 

The hearing was continued to the June 16, 1992 meeting. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



J. NEW BUSINESS: 

The following 1s a verbatim transcript of the discussion. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: We have some speakers on the New Business. I will 
take the slips 1n the order I received them. Mr. Brad Kerwln. 

MR. BRAD KERWIN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I am Brad 
Kerwin. I'm here today representing the City of Brisbane. I am also the 
Vice Chair of the Airport Land Use Committee in San Mateo County. I have 
with me Chris Pallas, Counci lmember from San Bruno, Janet Fogarty, 
Coundlmember from Mlllbrae and Mike Nevin who 1s a Counci lmember from 
Daly City, the largest City 1n San Mateo County. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Mr. Kerwln, a quick question. Representing the City 
of Brisbane, what 1s your function? Are you a Councilman or Mayor? 

MR. KERWIN: I'm the Mayor. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Mayor. Okay. 

MR. TURPEN: Mr. Kerwin, if you could use the microphone. If would be 
helpful so the audience could hear you as well. Thank you. 

MR. KERWIN: The Peninsula cities have expressed deep concern about the 
adverse environmental effects of Airport expansion without proper 
mitigation. The San Francisco Planning Commission, in failing to meet its 
obligations under law when it certified the deficient EIR as complete did 

Minutes . lune 992 Page 8 



neither your Commission, the Airport expansion project nor our communities 
any favors. It Is Important for you to understand that none of us opposes 
the expansion of the Airport If It Is done properly. Let me repeat that. 
It 1s Important for you to understand we do not oppose the expansion of 
the Airport 1f 1t 1s done properly. We just want you to do It correctly 
by providing the same types of mitigation for adverse Impacts that you 
would be required to if your site was located in San Francisco and you 
were a private developer. 

The EIR that was certified by the Planning Commission Is complete, while 
being verbose, avoided serious discussion of major problems and permitted 
your Commission, the developer in this case, to escape such a standard of 
equity. It is also Important for you to know that to date our concerns 
have been responded to only with vague statements that your Commission 
will discuss mitigation proposals. 

We request that this Commission establish and publicize a series of public 
meetings at convenient times and places for Peninsula citizens to provide 
their analysis and proposals to this Commission. Specifically, one, 
Commission should schedule four more meetings In locations convenient for 
public access and participation. Examples of good location are the 
M1 11 brae City Council Chambers, So. San Francisco Municipal Services 
Building and San Bruno City Hall. Both of these latter two locations are 
especially good because they both have cable television so the meetings 
could be broadcast in those communities, which, by the way, are two of the 
most significantly noise Impacted communities on the Peninsula. 

Meetings should not be held in San Francisco or at the Airport to be 
convenient to Airport staff but In the communities that will suffer any 
adverse Impacts if you fall to mitigate properly. Both afternoon and 
evening sessions should be scheduled. 

Two, San Francisco Airports Commission staff and consultants should 
describe the Commission's proposals. Each meeting should focus on a 
previously announced list of topics, although not be limited to those 
topics for public statements. 

Three, the Airports Commission should make Its experts, examples ESA and 
and various consultants, available for consultation. We propose that 
these experts work with appropriate staff and/or consultants of the San 
Mateo County communities. 

Four, the meetings, times, places and topics should be planned In 
consultation with Peninsula cities and published at least one week in 
advance of being held. Final action should be taken only after the 
Commission's consultants and the Commission members have had sufficient 
time to review all public proposals and provide adequate mitigation. 

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Mr. Kerwln, could I ask you a question or two? 



MR. KERWIN: Sure. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: You said "no one opposes if done properly." I take 
1t your talking about a process driven thing there, having these public 
meetings. Is that what your talking about? 

MR. KERWIN: Well, the specifics in the f our points there are specifically 
about the meetings that we understand your Commission is now proposing to 
have. The ball's in your court. The Planning Commission muffed it and 
you got to make it right if it's going to be made right. That's what it 
amounts to. 

Minutes, June 2, 1992. Page 9 



COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Well, I'm a little puzzled by what you mean "make 
right." What do you have in mind? 

MR. KERWIN: The mitigations in the areas primarily of noise, traffic 
congestion and housing which we don't believe were adequately addressed. 

COMMISSIONER MATTISON: Is the format and nature of the meetings that we 
propose to have a source of contention? I think we were talking about 
three public meetings. 



MR. KERWIN: Well, I'm not sure that the world knows other than there are 
some dates out there about locations, times and places. The detail isn't 
out. What's going to be on the agendas, that's not out. Hence the 
recommendations since it Isn't out that this is the way we think it would 
be most appropriate to have the most effectiveness. 



COMMISSIONER MURPHY: It would be helpful if we could have a letter from 
you. 



MR. KERWIN: I have copies of this (see attached.) 



COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I'm puzzled by one thing. The implication of what 
you say is this EIR was certified without any public meetings on the 
Peninsula. Is that so? 



MR. TURPEN: No. 

MR. KERWIN: No. The EIR process Is a long process. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Tell me all about it. 



MR. KERWIN: I'm not sure you want to know all about It. It's a long 
process and we did have an opportunity to comment during the comment 
period, which was actually extended beyond the statutory requirement. The 
comment period ended I believe It was back In October. The comments then, 
CEQA requires that the comments be responded to. The responses came out 
in a document that you wouldn't want to drop on your foot because it's so 
thick and those were released on the 7th. Most of us received them on the 
11th with a scheduled certification date of the 21st which is pretty short 
time for people to even understand what's in the material. The cities of 
San Mateo County specifically asked the Planning Commission for a 
reasonable period of time to at least digest the material. That was not 
granted. They did do a one week continuance because a couple of the 
Planning Commissioners had questions they wanted to ask staff and they did 
do a one week continuance. The Planning Commission asked no questions, 
certainly in public. That's the first time I've ever seen a Planning 
Commission that didn't have a question, but none of them had any questions 
and certified the thing unanimously on the 28th. So, it is now behind us 
and it's too bad because there are some deficiences in it. 



COMMISSIONER MATTISON: Is it possible, I mean given the fact that we are 
dealing with about 1,500 pages of material and two or three years of 
process. 



Minutes, June 2, 1992. Page 10 



MR. KERWIN: Light reading. 

COMMISSIONER MATTISON: Right. Can we kind of at least summarize the 
gross deficiencies, because I'm pretty Impressed with the document. 
Clearly, we are Intending to act In good faith 1n addressing mitigation 
aggressively and with the help of the community but I'm clearly very 
curious about any gross Inadequacies that might still remain after all 
this effort, time and money. 

MR. KERWIN: Well, I think, they are primarily in the areas of housing, 
traffic congestion and noise. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: What do you mean by housing? We're obligated to 
build housing? What? 

MR. KERWIN: Well, I'm not sure what your obligation is. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I'm not sure what you think it is, either. 

MR. KERWIN: Well, the fact 1s that the housing and the traffic congestion 
go hand 1n hand. If you look at the history of San Mateo County relative 
to the other communities to the North and the South it kind of looks like 
a barbell of employment with San Mateo County being a residential bar 
between two large employer bases, San Franlsco and Santa Clara County. 
Now, In the 1980s there were a bunch of jobs created up and down the bar 
as well which compounded an existing problem of the need to import labor 
and that's gotten worse. Your project will make it more worse. You know 
what I mean. We did make some suggestions about housing. I know in San 
Francisco if you want to build an office building you got to do something 
about housing. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: We're not a private developer though, are we. 

MR. KERWIN: I know. But the private developer Isn't doing 1t because 
he's a private developer, It's because of a public need. The public need 
doesn't change because you crossed the boundary. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I'm still trying to get a handle on what you'd want 
us to do. Frankly, Mr. Kerwln, I'm a little puzzled by some of the things 
you've said in the press and I'm just curious what you mean by housing. 
Are we supposed to build housing? 

MR. KERWIN: I guess there are different ways to do that. Either provide 
it. One suggestion that was not addressed in the comments was the 
suggestion that you build housing for employees on the Airport property. 
You have property that might be suitable for that. That was not addressed 
because the conclusion of the responses was there's no housing problem in 
San Mateo County which is a little bit ludicrous. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I don't think it's as ludicrous as building housing 
on the Airport, but go ahead. 

MR. KERWIN: Well, I don't know but that was a suggestion that was made to 
be evaluated and it wasn't. 

Minutes, June 2, 1992. Page 11 



COMMISSIONER MURPHY: My problem in all of this is ... you're right. We 
have to go through the process and have these meetings and your process 
driven comments are very well taken. The big three you've mentioned of 
noise, traffic and housing ... noise I guess I kind of lose my sense of 
humor about after what at least I've been through since I've been on this 
Commission and trying to do some things about noise. There are people in 
this room, including former Mayor Fogarty who we've had dialogues with and 
I hope we've reached accommodations with. We've tried to be a good 
neighbor on that issue and everytime somebody wants to beat us up a little 
bit we hear about it again. We will continue to be a good neighbor on 
that. Never mind what happens today or on the master plan. But traffic 
and housing just seem ... I mean if you want one Commissioner's opinion 
the signle best thing you could do to eleviate the traffic problem is 
build the Airport light rail system. 

MR. KERWIN: Well, the problem ... the EIR recognizes that traffic on 101 
is going to get worse. Were you a private developer you'd have to do 
something that. And I'm not sure what the mitigations are. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: What would a private developer do about 101? 

MR. KERWIN: I'm not quite sure what the specific ... I'm not a traffic 
engineer. That's why I think that It's important ... one of the 
suggestions here is that your staff and consultants be available for 
discussions with the communities professionals that understand this stuff. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Okay. 

MR. KERWIN: The mitigations on traffic, frankly, were largely the 
discussion and the comments, if you will recall from San Mateo County, 
came through the congestion management people and Sam Trans and the 
Department of Public Works. They didn't come from me. I don't claim to 
be an expert although I do have a Californa driver's license and have that 
level of opinlonation or opinion of traffic. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Okay. Thank you and we look forward to working with 
you. Feel free to come and see us at any time. 

MR. KERWIN: Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Okay. We had three other speakers. Janet Fogarty. 

MS. JANET FOGARTY: (changed tape) ... funds for our noise insulation 
program. We do appreciate your neighborl iness and are very pleased and 
our residents are very pleased that you've chosen to cooperate to in this 
important program. 

Secondly, I want to echo Mayor Kerwin's statements about the feelings of 
the Peninsula cities that we would very much like to have hearings in 
locales where the residents who are effected by noise and traffic are able 
to come and speak their mind to you and let you hear what their concerns 
are. We also, in the City of Ml 1 1 brae . have been trying to pick apart the 
600 and some odd pages in the document to give you specific comments and 
we will be putting those in writing and, of course, coming to the hearings. 

I came today to offer you the use of Mi '1 brae City Hall and anything we can 
Minutes, June 2, 1992. Page 12 



do to publicize those meetings, including broadcasting this on our cable 
channel. We would be happy to do that. Ask that you have your hearings 
at locations and at times when people can easily reach them by public 
transportation so that those who do not have a driver's license have a way 
to get to those meetings. We also are very concerned with the fact that 
the Planning Commission has certified a document that we feel 1s deficient 
in Its addressing of mitigation measures and so I would ask ... besides 
what Brad has asked you for, that you add one more point to your list of 
procedural Items and that would be that when the Commission has heard 
public testimony, decided on a proposed course of conduct that you make 
that public to us with sufficient time that we could come and address you 
on your final decision in that matter so that we'll have some opportunity 
to discuss it among our jurisdictions and present a case to you, if that's 
possible, at the 11th hour should we feel that there 1s some disagreement. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Just one question, Ms. Fogarty. I'm puzzled. Did 
your group not participate in the hearings on the EIR? 

MS. FOGARTY: Actually, Commissioner Murphy, If you go through the 
document you'll see my name there quite a bit. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: That's what I thought. I've read it line for line. 

MS. FOGARTY: We're just concerned that the response to those comments 
does not recognize a responsibility beyond the Airport property for the 
problems that are caused and we would like to comment on that in detail. 
At this time I would not like to comment on that in detail. I don't have 
my notes in front of me and there were many, many pages of Items, but we 
would be happy to provide that to you when you have your public hearings. 

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Chris Pallas 



MR. CHRIS PALLAS: Good morning. I'm Chris Pallas, a member of the City 
Council of the City of San Bruno. I believe this 1s the first time that I 
can think of that anyone from San Bruno has come before this body. And we 
are the most Impacted city of everyone concerning the Airport. We're also 
called, sometimes, the Airport City. We are the hub of the County. If 
you go to the Airport from the North, you through San Bruno. You come to 
the Airport from the South, you go through San Bruno. We are very, very 
much impacted by the Airport and we are very much concerned about this EIR 
that was passed by the Planning Commission. I just glanced through It. 
In fact, I haven't even got a copy to study 1t. Our city got one copy. 
The Planning Director has it. I had him write a letter picking out 
certain things in it that we found inadequate, not taking certain concerns 
that effect San Bruno. For instance, the traffic, the increase in air 
pollution. We are in a sphere of influence to the Airport. What services 
are we going to have to maybe perform in emergencies to the Airport if 
there is a disaster ... Police, Fire Department. Who pays for it? And, 
we feel there are many, many questions to this that we would like to 
Invite you to come to our City and listen to us. In other words, we have 
many people In San Bruno, as Mr. Turpen knows, who come to the Roundtable 
... I'm also a member of the Roundtable ... who are very concerned about 
the Airport. It's expansion. Let's face it, the Airport is not going to 
go away. It's going to stay here. We need it. But now are we going to 
use it? If it effects us, how do we learn to live with it? But I want 
you to come to us, listen to us, feel us, what do we have on our minds. 
By staying here it is hard for us to come to you. Let's face that. And, 

Minutes, June 2. 1992, Page 13 



we don't want to cause problems. Like BART is coming through. We feel 
they're trying to ram something down our throats. We don't like it. And, 
we maybe going to Court suing. Now, anybody can sue. We could even sue 
the Airport. You can sue for anything. But we don't want these kind of 
things. We something to go smoothly for the benefit of al 1 . So I hope 
you will come to San Bruno. We have cable. You'll get good exposure. 
And listen to us and see what we feel about the whole thing. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Okay. Just one observation. From some of the things 
you've described a pre-meet1ng of some of your City administrators with 
Airport staff might be appropriate because you've raised some questions 
that are a little different. Disaster preparedness and that sort of thing. 
I believe that SFO is second to none in airport disaster preparation. 
We've won a lot of awards for that and I think we probably ought to visit 
with you about that issue and make sure that we all understand that because 
I don't think that's the kind of issue that is particularly germaine to a 
public hearing, though you're certainly welcome to have it brought up. 

MR. PALLAS: Well, this Is probably ... 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I'm not trying to foreclose any issue. I'm just 
trying to move the debate along. 

MR. PALLAS: Sure. But this ... I just happened to pick out one, there are 
many, many. As you know there have been times where we've had problems at 
the Airport and you needed services and so on. We're human. We're not 
perfect. Things could happen. But in the mean time how is San Bruno going 
to be effected by all this traffic? Is San Bruno going to turn into a 
parking lot for the Airport? BART wants to put In a parking lot for 2,400 
cars at one end of the dty and at the other end another parking lot for 
650 cars, which is only the beginning. What about the air pollution, air 
quality and so on? There are many things I think we have to take Into 
consideration because the Airport expansion 1s not a small one. You're 
talking about going from 32,000,000 passengers to 50,000,000. That's quite 
a jump and we're right in the middle of the whole thing. There's no other 
dty as close to the Airport as San Bruno and we're very concerned. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Thank you. M1ke Nevln. 

MR. MIKE NEVIN: Thank you, very much. Thank you for the opportunity to 
be here and make whatever comments. As a former Mayor and Councilman of 
Daly City I appear here this morning, but also as a candidate on the 
ballot today for the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County. I just 
wanted to join this group In letting you know, first of all, how sensitive 
we all feel, as you do too, this Airport expansion Is in general. And I 
come in a spirit of politics of Inclusion and if by chance my role in the 
County should change today by an election to that Board of Supervisors I 
look forward to working with this body, the City of San Francisco, that 
have been a part of and been working for for the past 27 years in the 
spirit of cooperation so that all of these things that impact all of us 
... it's a win win for San Francisco County and San Mateo County at the 
same time. 

Thanks for having me here. 

COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Anybody else who wants to speak on this Issue. Is 
there any other new business? 

Okay. At this time the Airports Commission w1 11 go into closed session in 
accordance with Government Code Section 54956 9(b)(1) to discuss possible 

Minutes, June 2. 1992, Page 14 



litigation regarding the EIR and the Water Quality Control Board, and, 
Section 54957 to discuss personnel matters. 

MR. TURPEN: Ladles and gentlemen, thank you very much for attending. 
This concludes the public portion of the Airports Commission meeting. As 
Commission President Murphy said the Commission will be going Into closed 
session to confer with counsel and I'd ask members of the public to excuse 
themselves at this time. Thank you. 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go Into closed session In accordance 
with Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to discuss possible 
litigation regarding the Airport EIR and the Water Quality Control 
Board, and, Section 54957 to discuss personnel matters. 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:40 AM to go into closed session. 




Jommlsslon Secretary 



Minutes. June ? 1992. Page 15 



June 2, 1992 



IE: Public meetings for discussion of mitigation proposals for Airport Expansion 

Chairman Murphy and members of the Commission: 

The peninsula cities have expressed deep concern about the adverse environmental 
ifTects of airport expansion without proper mitigation. The San Francisco Planning 
Commission, in failing to meet its obligations under law when it certified the deficient EIR as 
somplete, did neither your Commission, the Airport Expansion Project, nor our communities 
iny favors. 

It is important for you to understand that none of us opposes the expansion of the 
lirport if it is done properly. We just want you to do it correctly by providing the same types 
>f mitigation for adverse impacts that you would be required to if your site was located in San 
r rancLsco and you were a private developer. The EIR that was certified by the San Francisco 
Manning Commission as complete, while verbose, avoided serious discussion of major 
>roblems and permitted your Commission, the developer in this case, to escape such a standard 
»f equity. 

It is also important for you to know that, to date, our concerns have been responded to 
inly with vague statements that this Commission will discuss mitigation proposals. We request 
hat this Commission establish and publicize a series of public meetings, at convenient times 
nd places, for the peninsula citizens to provide their analysis and proposals to this 
Commission. 

In particular: 

1 . The Commission should schedule four or more meetings, in locations convenient for 
iublic access and participation. Examples of good locations are the Mill brae City Council 
Chambers, South San Francisco Municipal Services Building and San Bruno City Hall. Both 
•f these last two locations are especially good because they both have Cable TV so the meetings 
ould be broadcast in those communities. Meetings should not be held in San Francisco or at 
he Airport to be convenient to Airport staff, but in the communities that will sufTer any 
dverse impacts you fail to mitigate properly. Both afternoon and evening sessions should be 
cheduled. 

2. SFAC staff and consultants should describe the Commission's proposals. Each 
aeeting should focus on a previously announced list of topics, although not be limited to those 
opics for public statements. 



3. The Airports Commission should make its experts (ESA and consultants) available 
for consultation. We propose that these experts work with appropriate staff and/or consultants 
of San Mateo County communities. 

4. The meetings (times, places, and topics) should be planned in consultation with 
peninsula cities and published at least one week in advance of being held. Final action should 
be taken only after the Commission's consultants and the Commission members have had 
sufficient time to review all public proposals and provide adequate mitigation. 



Very truly yours, 




JANET FOGAR 
Councilmember 
City of Mill brae 




6 

BRAD KERWIN 

Mayor 

City of Brisbane 

MIKE NEVrN 
Councilmember 
Gty of Daly City 



CHISPALAS 

CouncUmember 
Gty of San Bruno 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



JUNE 16, 1992 



OCT 3 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 
JAMES K. HO 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

June 16, 1992 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

June 2, 1992 92-0180 3 

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Master Plan Public Workshops 3 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

2. Response to Commission Inquiry re 
Full Cost of an Internal BART 

Alignment 3 

F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

3. Host Food & Beverage Lease - 

Sublessee Approval Request 92-0181 3 

4. Authorize Pre-Bid Conf. - Boarding 
Area E Principal Concession 

Retail Lease 92-0182 4 

5. Award Contract 1723B - Fi rehouse 
No. 2 Replacement Proj. 

Professional Services 92-0183 4 

6. Select Annual Report Contractor 92-0184 4 

7. Request for Proposal for an 

Airport Medical Examiner 92-0185 4 

8. Action re SEIU Local No. 1788 
v. American Bldg. Maintenance 

Co./AMPCO Parking Co. 92-0186 4 

9. Protocol Officer Contract 92-0187 4 

G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

10. Authorize Award of Shoeshine 

Stands Lease in South Terminal 92-0188 4 



11. Mod. No. 1 - Plot 20 Lease No. 

77-0202 - SF Community College 92-0189 5 

12. Mod. No. 11 of Contract with 

Morrison & Foerster 92-0190 5 

13. Type II Mod. - Contract 2328 - 
Airport Industrial Waste System 

Improvements 92-0191 5 

14. Professional Services Agreement 

- Water Testing and Analysis 92-0192 5 

15. Bid Call - Contract 3144 - Airport 

Underground Utilities - Repairs 92-0193 5 

16. Bid Call - Contract 3143 - 

Airfield Access Control 92-0194 5 

17. Bid Call - Contract 2349C - 
Convert Two Restrooms for the 

Disabled - Engineering Bldg. 92-0195 5 

18. Approval of Claims Settlement 92-0196 5 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

19. Amendments & Additions to Airport 
Rules & Regs. Including Changes to 
the Permit Regulations Governing 

Limousine Operations 6 

20. Hearing to Amend Noise Abatement 

Regulation 6 

21. Hearing on Airport Master Plan 6 



NEW BUSINESS: 6 

Calendars - 8-1 /2xl lpaper 6 

CORRESPONDENCE: 6 

CLOSED SESSION: 

Settlement - Si tzenstatter 6 

ADJOURNMENT: 6 



Minutes, June 16, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 16, 1992 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Pr *esent: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
James K. Ho 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0180 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Master Plan Public Workshops - Verbal Report 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

2. Response to Commission Inquiry on the Full Cost of an Internal BART 
A1 iqnment - Verbal Report 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos. 3 through 9 were adopted unanimously. 

3. Host International, Inc. Food and Beverage Lease - Sublessee Approval 
Request 

No. 92-0181 Resolution considering subleases for 

Phase I of the Host International Food 
and Beverage Lease. 



Minutes, June 16, 1992, Pagt 3 



Authorization for Pre-Bid Conference 

Boarding Area "E" Principal Concession Retail Lease 

No. 92-0182 



Commissioner Mattison was recused from voting on this item. 

5. Award of Contract No. 1723B 

Firehouse No. 2 Replacement Project - Professional Services 

No. 92-0183 Resolution awarding Contract 1723B to 

Group 4/Architecture, Research & 
Planning in the amount of $216,000. 



Selection of Annual Report Contractor 

No. 92-0184 Resolution awarding contract to Morla 

Design to produce the Airport's 1992 
Annual Report. 



Request for Proposal for an Airport Medical Examiner 

No. 92-0185 Authorize extension of current contract 

with Readicare - California Industrial 
Medical Clinics, Incs. & Issue RFP for 
Airport Medical Examiner. 



Action re Service Employees International Union Local No. 1877 v . 
American Building Maintenance Co./Ampco Parking Co. 

No. 92-0186 Resolution transmitting, pursuant to 

S.F. Administrative Code Section 
6.1-3(c) a request for prevailing wage 
determination. 



Protocol Officer Contract 

No. 92-0187 Resolution authorizing award of a 

contract for Protocol Officer services 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINSTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 10 through 18 were adopted unanimously. 

10. Authorization for Award of Shoeshine Stands Lease in the South 
Terminal Building 

No. 92-0188 Resolution approving award of Lease of 

Shoeshine Stands in the South Terminal 
Building to Shoe Shine Unlimited, Inc. 



Minutes, June 16, 1992, Page 4 



11 . Modification No. 1 - Plot 20 - Lease No. 77-0202 
San Francisco Community College 

No. 92-0189 Modify S.F. Community College Lease No. 

77-0202 relinquishing approximately 
3,500 sq. ft. to the Airport and 
approve rental credit to United 
Airlines for Airport electrical work. 



12. Modification No. 11 of Contract with Morrison and Foerster 
No. 92-0190 



13. Type II Modification - Contract No. 2328 
Airport Industrial Haste System Improvements 

No. 92-0191 



14. Professional Services Agreement - Hater Testing and Analysis 

No. 92-0192 Resolution to approve hiring Sequoia 

Analytical to provide professional 
testing services - $70,000. 



15. Bid Call - Contract No. 3144 

Airport Underground Utilities - Repairs 

No. 92-0193 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
3144 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



16. Bid Call - Contract No. 3143 
Airfield Access Control 

No. 92-0194 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
3143 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



17. Bid Call - Contract No. 2349C 

Conversion of Two Restrooms for the Disabled - Engineering Building 

No. 92-0195 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
2349C and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



Approval of Claims Settlement 

No. 92-0196 Resolution approving the settlement of 

claims not exceeding $5,000 for the 
period October 1991 to March 1992. 
Total Claims: $4,535.32 

Minutes. June 16, 1992, Page 5 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing on Item No. 19 was convened at 10:08 AM and adjourned 
at 10:10 AM, there being no further comments from the public. 

19. Amendments and Additions to Airport's Rules and Regulations Including 
Changes to the Permit Regulations Governing Limousine Operations 



The public hearing was convened at 10:10 AM and adjourned at 10:12 AM, 
there being no further comments from the public. 

20. Hearing to Amend Noise Abatement Regulation 

Amending Noise Abatement Regulation in 
Response to Q-707 Decision. 



The public hearing was convened at 10:13 AM and adjourned at 10:55 AM, 
there being no further comments from the public. 

21 . Hearing on the Airport Master Plan 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Dr. Nancy Jewel-Cross suggested that calendars be printed on 8-1/2x11 
paper. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to discuss the settlement of a claim 
for Carol S. Sitzenstatter . 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:55 AM to go into closed session. 




(kslCCL 



/Je/an Caramatti 

lission Secretary 

Minutes, June °G, 199?. Page 6 



/^ 



'^^^r^^n^t^*^^ tfJ2**M*»<iUcB' &&**%** ■Jtifxtf fy***/6> /<??*- 
sofi^j affiacTo^-jfi^^ /™*w Ztdz Junr^ Jru^ff^ Oait^Zit^ &*J 

J2h^C ^ a/UJUf /Tk^w p£*fl$ OAJL 9io[^/^^tA' 4+* 3&A &>Uj &U24_s 




/w^-K/ 




d dZi^<&dLZ<*^ 0*4 ' (kji/^Cy 



l ^?t. 



^ jr. 



' /yyu^ufrxM^x 



flvi tfMuZm drew *tJ J&44£+~ JA4/6& UfrAfAfe* a^\4d$ufod06ifa 



/>ritfa 




&, 



, "ill &A e/JU^ ^/U^Lc^fJU^ 



' dJAfotriTdb&i' , 



f 








aJ M&Q^rut jr j&ut/vk fl/mAf*- /iwUd<^ ^*oe/a^ <zaals -Vfts 
Ia,,//*. y^yjZ JbfarttA^ $yp^<^^<< / ^^ Ccfooy y^AZC 



qk as Jew soi^kMyxZy y 
















3* /u^ **&*«& k.t -^TA^J^LJUM^^^f^ 



q^Mm 



AtJ&L JflA,. v^W^ sQtyv '$*& "*tyft •# e ' /a&ujc&td <?U*n J c4£ %& 



3 



jtwJty ] /n£h( 'Jf 'to; 



~>t*> 



Jfa 








Wfl* 






3^/Vo^M J& pTUji Jd£j? tfZ&> c/oz&rmjz ^^rn^ 
. /?! A.., £\.£ vCJLJ tA. Gr7Z>^J tt 





/thus GecfQl&t, fa* d*>Y^ (Stu^Tu^t^ 3£jq*z£ ^ ^njc^^t- 





mm* *tt#*j G*^{fZrJi, 



7&wJi! 




9* 



_llll III 



t* "" "" "~ — — *»H 



Ps % 




New Direction. 
New Opportunities. 

(All TIANSPOtT TO S.«. INTEINATIONAl AIIPOIT 



feet the Issues and 
Get the Answers 



bAKT. CALTMIN. ANb 
In San Francisco *» 



TKOLLieS JO/rVffl/ 



Choose the BestI 
. Get the BestI 
Mist Li the best? 

Daltrain. not Bart, in San Mateo County, with 
Caltrain Airport Station opposite the main 
entrance to the Airport. Caltrain will connect 
ground level with Muni Metro electric light rail 
train inS.F. at 7th & Channel aquatic park. 
12 minutes train ride to Embarcadero Bart/cable 
car. 31 minutes train travel from Market St to 
S.F. Airport using Muni Metro Rail & Caltrain! 

How can we have this? 
Speak up for Alternative I • 
Caltrsin, No Build Bart 
Reject all the Bart scenarios: 
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3, & 4. 



4* 

e 
Else trie o 

Muni Metro o 
Rail -U0 ml X 
la S.F. ^ 



4> 
CO 

t 
* 



* 



water 



• - - M ft. w w u 

Bart to/from £ «* £ >) Eaat Bey 

Daly City fi & f 1 

Muni Metro Rail ifl channel St 



Muni Metro Rail 
extended In a 
bouleverd to 
Caltrain. 
♦lU million 
to Uth St 
(preaent 
terminal) '" V 




f.». DOWNTOWN 




Bart 

19 minutes 
S1-4S on* way 
23 mph. 6 mitoa 



CltT* 



t 2: 

38 mmutaa 

S2J0 on* way. 16 man 

$1 .000.000.000. from 

San Matao County 4 taxadi 




Can ram 

23 mtnutaa 

$1 JO on* way 

31 mph. 12 m 

II .000.000 tor •tattoo 

and road to ramp*, addl tor 

paopw movaf/ahuttf* bus**. 

S.F. Airport *■ pay tor am 



Flexi- 
ble elec- 
tric mini- 
train ("people 
mover") 1s 

For air quality. 1 !? c1 fl ?? d 

transport efficiency, in jjj 
popularity, economy, 

CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS Ond flSCOl proctiCOItty, 

Association of Civic Shareholders nell-informed psoplt 

Transportation and Air Status Solutions Qre yryjng. 

Or. Nancy Jewall Cross, ctmt Exocrine Offloar 1 *' 

(415) 854-6882 : 301 Vint Street 
Mtnlo Park. California 94025 



Avaragt velocities: 

Ban - 32 mph, Caltrain 40 mph 

1/10/M r«.M 1/10/01 



Travel Tinea from/to 

■ Embarcadero Station: 
Civic Center 5 mln., 
Uth St. 9 mln. , 7th 
St. 12 min., S.F. 
Airport 31 minutes, 
snd $20 million to SF-ehosen new depot at 
7th & Channel Ste. Fully SF funded. 
Fully approved, 

•CAJ TRAIN AIRPORT STATION NOW! 

A Httle house, 24-hours lighted, 
no cars parking— only airport shuttle- 
buses frequently connecting over 
•101 ramps. 

Save carparktng fees, fines, 
hazards 

Can be operattonel In a few 
months without federal/state funde 
or new local taxes. Cost $ 1 ,000.000. 
estimated. 

What about the people mover? 

S. F. Airport offers to Caltrain at 
Millbrae opposite the main entrance 
a new Caltrain Airport Station and 
a people mover to the terminals and 
maintenance base connected, on Its 
own land and entirety at the expense 
of the airport, and a free shuttle bus 
meeting every Caltrain in the Interim 
until the people mover is operating! 




Priority Chotca 



=**= 



30C 



3tae 



one 



WW »i>C 



Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

LAWYERS 

55 FRANCISCO STREET, SUITE 600 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133 

TELEPHONE: (415) 421-3200 

TELEFAX: (415) 421-5044 



ONE CITY CENTRE 

770 L STREET. SUITE 990 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9SSI 

TELEPHONE: (916) 1K7-07O0 

TELEFAX: (916) A47-478I 



June 16, 1992 



Mr. Patrick Murphy, President 

and Members of the Airports Commission 
Airports Commission 
San Francisco International Airport 
Main Terminal, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94128 



Re: Commission Action on Master Plan for SFIA and 

Adoption of Mitigation for Environmental Impact 

Report for Airport Expansion 

Public Hearing: June 16. 1992 



Dear President Murphy 

and Members of the Airports Commission: 

This office represents The Koll Company, the developer 
of Koll Center Sierra Point, substantial acreage located east of 
U.S. Highway 101 in the Cities of South San Francisco and 
Brisbane. The purpose of this letter is to request that the 
Airports Commission adopt appropriate mitigation for certain 
environmental impacts identified in the Environmental Impact 
Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion at San Francisco 
International Airport. 

As you know, the EIR for the expansion was recently 
certified as final by the San Francisco City Planning Commission. 
Koll believes that the EIR identified several significant 
environmental impacts likely to occur as a result of the 
expansion, for example, impacts on traffic, noise, and housing. 
(See the attached letter from Roll's counsel to the City Planning 
Commission of May 20, 1992, which addresses these issues in 
detail.) Roll's attached comments on the EIR point out the 
absence of mitigation measures which the Airports Commission now 
has an opportunity to address. 

Koll asks that the Commission address mitigation 
measures for housing, noise and traffic impacts expected from the 
expansion as part of the Master Plan process. Koll would be 
happy to work with the Commission to identify mitigation measures 



June 16, 1992 
Page 2 



that would be appropriate. Specifically, Koll can help the 
Commission to address the issue of housing impacts. Koll 
proposes to develop some of its acreage east of Highway 101 as 
high-density housing. As Roll's proposed site for this 
development lies outside the 65 CNEL contour area and as the 
contour area is expected to shrink in the future, the site is 
suitable for residential development under federal, state and 
local noise criteria. 

As part of this development, Koll would be happy to 
work with the Commission to devise a strategy that would ensure 
that Roll's proposed development would be compatible with the 
airport's long-term goals. A successful Memorandum of 
Understanding entered into recently between the City of San 
Leandro, the City of Oakland, and Citation Homes contained 
practical noise mitigation measures such as noise easements, 
noise attenuation, and disclosure statements. That agreement may 
provide a useful starting point for discussion between Koll and 
the Commission regarding noise mitigation measures that would 
make development of housing at Sierra Point possible. 

In sum, Koll remains willing to aid the Commission in 
addressing mitigation measures for the airport's planned 
expansion. We look forward to participating jointly with the 
Commission in this process. 



John Briscoe 
Attachments 




Washburn, Briscoe 8c McCarthy 

A PBOrtSSiONAL CORPORATION 

LAWYERS 

55 FRANCISCO STREET. SUITE 600 

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 9AI33 

TELEPHONE: <AIS) •421-3200 

telefax: (.aiS) 12I-S044 



May 20, 1992 



ONE OT-r CENTRE 

770 L STPEET. SUITE 990 

SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958' 

TELEPHONE: <9I6: ->«7-0?00 

TELEFAX (916. *A7-<76i 



Mr. Sidney Unobskey, President 

and Members of the City Planning Commission 
San Francisco City Planning Commission 
450 McAllister Street, 6th Floor, Room 600 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Re: Proposed Final EIR Certification for San Francisco 
International Airport Master Plan 
(Commission Agenda on May 21, 1992) 

Dear President Unobskey 

and Members of the City Planning Commission: 

This office represents The Koll Company, the developer of 
Koll Center Sierra Point, developer of substantial acreage located 
east of U.S. Highway 101 in the Cities of South San Francisco and 
Brisbane. The purpose of this letter is to explain our primary 
concerns regarding: (1) the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 
the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan dated July 1991 
(hereinafter, "Draft EIR"); and (2) the Draft Summary of Comments 
and Responses to the Environmental Impact Report dated May 7, 1992 
("C&R") . 

For the reasons that follow, we urge the City Planning 
Commission not to certify the Draft EIR as final at its hearing 
scheduled for May 21, 1992. Instead, as explained in detail below, 
we request that the Draft EIR be revised to include certain 
necessary mitigation measures, as well as substantial additional 
data and analyses. A new Draft EIR should then be recirculated for 
public comment. 

Request for Delay : Addressing an important procedural 
issue first, our opportunity to review the C&R has been limited 
unfairly by the Department of City Planning to an insufficient 
amount of time. The C&R is dated May 7, 1992, yet a final 
certification hearing on May 21, 1992 is scheduled. The C&R for 
expansion of San Francisco International Airport (the "Airport") 
exceeds 450 pages and addresses numerous important issues. We have 
not had adequate time to review the C&R thoroughly, let alone 
analyze all of the Responses in the C&R and provide the Commission 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 2 



with that analysis. In order that we and others may have a 
sufficient opportunity to review and analyze the C&R in depth, we 
have already requested by letter dated May 15, 1992 that the 
Commission delay the certification hearing by 60 days at a minimum. 

This requested delay is fully justified. The expansion 
of the Airport is a significant project that will have a major 
impact on the entire Bay Area. From our initial brief review, the 
C&R appears to be wholly inadequate and does not conform to the 
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 
Therefore, the Draft EIR should not be certified as written on May 
21, 1992. Substantial revisions are called for, in particular to 
incorporate stronger measures to mitigate adverse noise, housing, 
and transportation impacts, among other mitigation measures and 
revisions. A certification hearing on May 21 would be premature. 

Consultation With Other Agencies Is Required : It is 
clear that there are major problems with the Draft EIR that the 
Commission must be prepared to remedy before certifying the EIR as 
final. The Commission is required under CEQA, Public Resources 
Code sections 21092.4 and 21153, to consult with other agencies 
regarding certain issues addressed in the EIR. For a project of 
this magnitude, this consultation requirement should not be taken 
lightly. It is apparent, however, from the lack of adequate 
mitigation measures set forth in the C&R, that the required 
consultation cannot have taken place for this project. 

For example, Caltrans commented on the Draft EIR that 

I project generated traffic should be mitiqated so that LOS 

[Level of Service] standards on facilities identified in both San 
Mateo and San Francisco counties Congestion Management Plans are 
not adversely affected." (C&R. 158.) The Airport's Response to this 
comment manifests a lack of consultation with Caltrans. The 
Response given to Caltrans' comment is inadequate, because no true 
mitigation measures to maintain Level Of Service standards are 
proposed for any of the expansion's adverse impacts on freeway 
congestion. 

The only traffic mitigation measures proposed are 
relatively minor improvements to existing local intersections and 
monitoring of traffic on El Camino Real, and at a few major 
intersections near the Airport. There is no true mitigation 
proposed for the expected increase in volume of traffic on the 
freeways due to the Airport expansion. Thus, as the Commission has 
not responded at all to Caltrans' concerns, the Commission cannot 
be said to have truly consulted with Caltrans to devise an 
effective solution to the traffic impacts. Other Responses in the 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 3 



C&R illustrate this failure to consult with appropriate agencies in 
a strikingly similar fashion. 

Problems with the Draft EIR and C&R : Our major concerns over 
the Responses in the C&R stem from the lack of adequate mitigation 
measures set forth in the C&R, relating in particular to adverse 
noise, transportation and housing impacts. Because of the 
significance of the Airport expansion, our comments in some 
instances restate comments of others on the Draft EIR, particularly 
where we believe that the responses in the C&R to particular 
comments are inadequate. 

A. Noise Impacts 

Contrary to the assertions of the Draft EIR, it is not at 
all clear that the Airport expansion will not result in increased 
noise. The Draft EIR expects a 26% increase in total annual 
aircraft operations (take-offs and landings) between 1990 and 2006. 
(Draft EIR, p. 24.) Although the Draft EIR expects that larger, 
quieter aircraft and higher passenger occupancy levels will not 
result in higher noise levels by 2006 (see Draft EIR, p. 452) , this 
assertion is unsupported by evidence in the Draft EIR and is 
clearly conjecture. As stated in an article in the San Francisco 
Independent of August 27, 1991 entitled "Airport Growth Alarms 
Citizens", the Airport Noise Committee of the San Francisco Board 
of Supervisors is concerned that the expansion will create more 
noise and that the difference in noise using newer, quieter 
aircraft may be barely perceptible. 

It is far from clear that total aircraft operations will 
increase by only 26%. An increase of 26% seems too small when 
compared to the expected 71% increase in annual passengers and the 
expected 55% increase in cargo and mail activity. (Draft EIR, p. 
24.) As a preliminary matter, the C&R should explain, in a 
comprehensible fashion, the statistical and other empirical 
assumptions that have been made in anticipating larger, quieter 
aircraft and higher passenger occupancy levels. Absent a 
compelling case that more flights mean less noise, noise mitigation 
measures should be required and should be monitored for 
effectiveness. What noise mitigation is proposed in the C&R is 
inadequate to address the problem of increased noise, as explained 
below. 

1. Noise Insulation Program : One mitigation measure 
included in the C&R is the existing Noise Insulation Program. 
However, this program has been implemented too slowly to constitute 
an effective mitigation measure, and has been underfunded. With 
the increased revenues to the Airport expected from the expansion 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 4 



plan, the Airport should pledge even greater resources towards this 
program for all impacted communities. 

The Airport, in conjunction with the FAA and surrounding 
cities, should continue to refine and improve the program by 
providing additional funding commensurate with the number of 
eligible homes and speeding up the snail's pace at which homes have 
been insulated. We recommend establishment of mitigation measures 
in the Draft EIR that would: (1) consistent with a recently-adopted 
Airport Round Table policy, set a deadline of the year 2000 as the 
date by which all eligible homes will have been insulated; and (2) 
provide adequate annual funding to insulate all eligible homes 
during that period. 

2. Decrease in Noise-Impacted Areas ; Federal and state 
laws require the Airport to reduce noise impacts over the long 
range, as projected in Table 52 of the Draft EIR (p. 34) . It is 
clear from a comparison of Figures 20 and 32 of the Draft EIR that 
total land areas impacted by airport noise are expected to shrink 
substantially by 1996 if the underlying data are correct. For 
example, for the period 1990-2006, there is a projected decrease in 
noise at noise monitor 15 (located east of U.S. Highway 101 in 
South San Francisco) from a dB CNEL level of 62.2 to 55.4. (Draft 
EIR, Table 53.) The number of persons in residential areas that 
are exposed to aircraft noise is also expected to decrease from 
14,980 to 6,600 persons by 2006. (Draft EIR, Table 52.) Maps 
showing an even greater reduction of noise-impacted areas were 
provided for the No-Project Alternative for 1996 and 2006. (Draft 
EIR, Figures 34, 35.) 

Although we applaud these projected results, the results 
are based on various assumptions which may not occur without the 
adoption and continued monitoring of strong mitigation measures to 
ensure their occurrence. Therefore, to enforce this expected 
decrease in the number of persons and the total area exposed to 
aircraft noise, we recommend that strict mitigation measures be 
adopted to ensure that these results actually occur within the 
projected time frame. 

3. Sinale-Event Noise Mitigation : Even with an 
expected reduction of overall noise impacts as predicted by the 
Draft EIR, single-event noise will still present the problem to 
surrounding communities that it does today. The C&R concedes that 
the projected increase in aircraft activity is expected to cause a 
corresponding increase in frequency of single-event noise impacts. 
(C&R. 228.) The Airport expansion provides a golden opportunity to 
address this troublesome issue; however, the C&R sets forth no 
specific mitigation measure addressing single-event noise. 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 5 



Although a considerable number of comments were received 
addressing the single-event issue, the Responses in the C&R are 
sketchy at best and do not provide any solutions to the problem. 
Because most single-events which disturb sleep patterns occur in 
late evening hours, we suggest that mitigation measures be adopted 
addressing single-event noise. Such measures might include: (l) 
the Airport should consider imposing new restrictions on hours for 
take-offs and landings; and (2) imposing special noise impact 
mitigation fees on late-night take-offs and landings (particularly 
for cargo planes) . Although these suggestions have been raised 
before in other forums, the Airport expansion is the ideal 
opportunity to reconsider such restrictions. 

B. Transportation Impacts 

As with noise impacts, the C&R does not provide adequate 
mitigation for adverse traffic impacts. For example, the expected 
impact on traffic on freeways surrounding the Airport will be very 
significant. The total daily traffic volume is expected to 
increase during the period from 1990 to 2006 from 110,700 vehicles 
per day to 168,500 per day. (Draft EIR, Summary, p. 4.) The Level 
of Service on southbound Highway 101 will decrease from Level C to 
Level E. (Draft EIR, p. 319.) The Level of Service on northbound 
Highway 101 will decrease from Level C to Level F. ( Id. ) The 
Level of Service on Interstate 380 will decrease from C to F. 
(Id^) 

Yet the recommended transportation mitigation measures 
appear to be totally inadequate to cope with this increased volume 
of freeway traffic. The C&R is virtually devoid of any true 
mitigation for freeway congestion. For Highway 101, all that is 
proposed is a High Occupancy Vehicle Lane in each direction from 
San Jose to San Francisco and the installation of ramp meters and 
signage. (Draft EIR, p. 417.) This mitigation ignores the fact 
that 25% of the new employees are expected to reside in the City of 
San Francisco and will have to travel to the Airport from the 
north. (Draft EIR, p. 396.) There is also no indication that this 
limited mitigation will improve the expected decline in the Level 
of Service. Moreover, Caltrans is opposed to the conversion of an 
existing mixed flow lane into a High Occupancy Vehicle Lane, which 
conversion is not included in the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission's Master Plan. (C&R. 161-62. ) Samtrans also considers 
this proposed conversion to be an invalid mitigation measure. 
(C&R. 162.) 

Although some mitigation measures for this expected 
increase in traffic congestion are proposed to be located on-site 
at the Airport (including a people-mover, Ground Transportation 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 6 



Center, and future BART or CalTrain extensions into the Airport 
(see C&R. 320-23) ) , such on-site measures do not satisfactorily 
mitigate all traffic impacts from the Airport expansion. The 
proposed minor upgradings by Caltrans of adjacent state highways 
and the possible restriping of one lane of Highway 101 to a High 
Occupancy Vehicle Lane (see Draft EIR, pp. 412-13) do not appear to 
correct the primary Level Of Service problems that are expected on 
the major thoroughfares. 

Additionally, there may well be more adverse traffic 
impacts than are projected by the Draft EIR, because the Draft EIR 
does not appear to cover all impacted areas. The C&R admits that 
only segments of affected freeways were studied. (C&R. 123.) 
Because the Airport is and will be one of the largest employers 
located on Highway 101, a new, comprehensive, detailed analysis of 
the effects on, as well as necessary improvements to, Highway 101 
and all supporting freeways and bridges should be completed. The 
C&R's attempted correction of the Draft EIR's traffic study via an 
update of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis with data from only one 
missing freeway segment in Belmont is simply not a comprehensive 
method for analyzing and improving the Level of Service on this 
major access corridor. (See C&R. 123.) 

The traffic data also may not sufficiently account for 
increased traffic impacts stemming from the expected increase in 
indirect employment of 50% from the planned Airport expansion. 
(C&R. 120.) The Airport claims that "assumptions regarding 
developments in the vicinity of SFIA that might affect the traffic 
operations in the study area . . . were reviewed with respect to the 
project's potential impacts on study-area intersections." However, 
it is unclear whether this review took into account the projected 
increase of 50% in indirect employment or projected increases in 
induced employment. Further explanation and analysis are necessary 
to ensure that all future traffic impacts from indirect employment 
have been accounted for in the Draft EIR. 

The Draft EIR's approach to the traffic problem, as 
illustrated by the C&R, does not place any of the costs of 
implementing required mitigation measures on the shoulders of the 
Airport. The pass-through of some of these costs to the Airport 
should be included as a mitigation measure. The Airport is in a 
unique position as a transportation agency to cooperate with other 
agencies and to participate in the planning of long-term solutions 
to the Bay Area's traffic congestion. The Airport should be able 
to fund some of those local solutions through increased revenues 
generated by the expansion. 












San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 7 



Because the Airport will benefit from the proposed 
expansion, it is only fair that the Airport assume some financial 
obligation for mitigating some of the adverse traffic impacts 
resulting from the expansion. If the Airport is currently limited 
in its ability to accommodate the impact on traffic, then we 
recommend that either that limitation be lifted or the Airport 
expansion be put on hold until such time as such additional 
regional transportation facilities (or appropriate alternatives) 
can be provided to maintain acceptable Levels of Service throughout 
the area. 

An additional mitigation that would lessen adverse 
impacts on both traffic and noise would be a reduction in the 
proposed increase in cargo aircraft. (Draft EIR, p. 24.) The need 
for additional cargo facilities at this particular Airport seems 
impractical, given both the high price of land in the area that can 
be used for warehouse facilities for cargo traffic and additional 
noise impacts that could result from night take-offs to meet 
evening landing restrictions in foreign countries. 

It would appear that either Metropolitan Oakland 
International Airport or other airports would be more appropriate 
locations for such additional cargo facilities. The C&R concedes 
that the Airport's share of domestic air freight has decreased from 
95% to 75% over the last ten years, although the overall regional 
market has grown by 37%. (C&R.35.) The Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission forecasts that the Airport's percentage 
share of cargo activity, as compared to the share of Oakland 
International, will continue to decrease significantly from 1990 to 
2010. Why should the Airport plan to accept more cargo flights 
when it can barely keep up with the projected passenger demand? We 
recommend that the final EIR include an alternative that would not 
include significant increases in cargo handling. 

C. Housing Impacts 

One of the Draft EIR's critical deficiencies is its lack 
of mitigation for adverse housing impacts and impacts on the 
jobs/housing balance. The C&R inadequately addresses the demand 
for housing that will be created by new employment at the Airport. 
According to the Draft EIR, direct airport employment is expected 
to increase due to the expansion by about 9,000 jobs in the period 
from 1990 to 2006. (Draft EIR, Figure 19, p. 396.) Yet, as shown 
below, housing in the whole Bay Area as a region will be affected 
by these new jobs, because 63% of these new employees will reside 
outside San Mateo County, in part due to lack of affordable 
housing. Because the Draft EIR's analysis of housing impacts is 
limited almost exclusively to San Mateo County, it fails to take 






San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 8 



■the necessary regional approach to the housing problem that will 
result from Airport expansion. 

The total housing demand created by these 9,000 new jobs 
is expected to be 6,850 total housing units by 2006. (See Draft 
EIR, p. 398.) About 37.1% of the new Airport employees are 
expected to reside in San Mateo County. f id, at p. 397.) The 
Draft EIR asserts that 2,450 housing units are needed in San Mateo 
County for these new employees. ( Id. ) 

The housing demand figures used in the Draft EIR's 
analysis are much too low for two reasons. First, the predicted 
demand for 6850 housing units does not even take into account the 
housing demand created by the expected increase in indirect and 
induced employment at the Airport. The number of indirect and 
induced jobs expected to be created from the Airport expansion is 
about 38,570 by the year 2006, over and above the 9,000 direct 
jobs. (C&R. 358.) The C&R asserts that, because it is not possible 
to determine the exact location of these indirect and induced jobs, 
it is not possible to determine the extent of housing impacts on 
San Mateo County. However, as the County will obviously be greatly 
affected if even some percentage of these new indirect and induced 
jobs are located within the County, the Draft EIR's analysis does 
not even scratch the surface in attempting to determine housing 
needs in the County. Second, the Draft EIR's housing needs 
analysis does not consider other increases in jobs in the Bay Area 
that may occur that are unrelated to the Airport. 

The Draft EIR tacitly concludes that there will be no 
housing problem because most of the new Airport employees will live 
outside the County. This conclusion is illogical. A problem will 
be created for the 37.1% of the new employees that are expected to 
live in San Mateo County. As reported in the Peninsula Times 
Tribune on August 28, 1991 in an article entitled "A Call for 
Balance," officials in San Mateo County have urged the Airport to 
provide housing in north county cities for the 9,000 new employees. 

A problem could also be created for the new indirect 
employees who might reside in the area. The C&R assumes, on page 
358, "that direct and induced jobs created as a result of 
implementation of the SFIA Master Plan would be located throughout 
the Bay Area and also outside the region." Is this assumption 
necessarily true? The Draft EIR could just as easily have assumed 
that many of these indirect jobs would be located in San Mateo or 
San Francisco counties if sufficient affordable housing was made 
available nearby for the employees. If those indirect jobs were 
located in these two counties, then the housing problem could be 
exacerbated even more. 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 9 



The Draft EIR fails to consider housing problems 
predicted for the Bay Area as a region. It relies on projections 
by the Association of Bay Area Governments of the potential for new 
housing units that will exist in 2006 to support its assertion that 
there will be no adverse housing impacts from the expansion. Such 
reliance is misplaced, however, as illustrated by data from two 
affected counties where housing is predicted to be a problem. 
(Draft EIR, pp. 395, 399, note 5.) The data indicates that the Bay 
Area as a region is having difficulty meeting its housing needs. 

For example, in recent years, San Mateo County has not 
been producing housing units commensurate with its projected 
housing need. According to a study by ABAG of January 1989 
entitled "Housing Needs Projections," the production of housing 
units in San Mateo County from 1980 to 1988 was 16,628 units. The 
projected need during this period was 23,499 units. There was, 
therefore, a large shortfall in housing units. (ABAG Study, p. 14.) 

As another example, there will likely be a need in San 
Francisco County for more housing to accommodate the new Airport 
employees. About 25% of the new Airport employees are expected to 
live in the City of San Francisco. (Draft EIR, p. 396.) A recent 
report by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association 
(SPUR) , entitled "Plain Talk About the Housing Crises in San 
Francisco" dated May, 1992, states clearly: "There is a housing 
crisis in San Francisco." Although the report cites ABAG's 
estimate of the City's housing need to be 3584 units a year, 
because only 1240 units were produced annually during 1980-89, 
there was a large shortfall. (SPUR Report, p. 2.) In addition, 
the report expects that there will be almost 5000 jobs created 
annually in San Francisco between the present and the year 2000. 
( Id. ) The report calculates that only 10% of the current City 
population can afford to buy a median-priced single-family house. 
( Id. at p. 1.) These employment and housing demand figures are 
staggering, considering there is very little housing currently 
being built in San Francisco. 

Therefore, because the City of San Francisco clearly has 
a housing problem similar to that of San Mateo County, it provides 
a clear example that the Draft EIR should not attempt to shift the 
housing responsibility from San Mateo County to other counties as 
a solution to the housing problem created by the expansion. 

Problems could also arise due to a lack of affordable 
housing for the new employees. The C&R admits that "new SFIA 
employees would create additional demands on housing supply, 
possibly resulting in an increase in the area's housing prices." 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 10 



(C&R. 363.) Exacerbating this potential problem, it appears that 
many of the projected 9,000 new jobs at the Airport will be low- 
income or moderate- income jobs. About 1200 of the new jobs to be 
created are related to freight or ground transportation (see Draft 
EIR, pp. 395-97) , which have traditionally not been high-income 
jobs. As ABAG commented in the C&R, "Decision makers need to know 
the projected income of these employees and how housing that is 
affordable to them will be provided. Most airport employees cannot 
afford to live in San Mateo County." (C&R, p. 362.) 

It is well accepted that there is a demonstrated need in 
San Mateo County for low, and moderate-income housing. As one 
commenter stated, "the housing costs in [San Mateo County] are very 
high." (C&R. 364.) There are no data provided in the Draft EIR on 
the current cost of housing in the County or the expected income 
levels of the 9,000 new employees. There are, therefore, no data 
of any kind provided in the Draft EIR relating to whether housing 
in the County will be affordable for these new moderate-income 
employees. 

Therefore, there has been no true analysis made at all as 
to whether affordable units will be available for the 37.1% of the 
new employees who are expected to reside in the County, much less 
the additional indirect employees who might reside in the County. 
The C&R admits that no af f ordability analysis has been prepared. 
(C&R. 363.) At the same time, the Draft EIR concedes that the 
presence of the new employees who do live in the County will strain 
already-high housing prices in the County. 

The C&R concedes that "[t]he additional demand for 
housing resulting from the project could potentially have negative 
socio-economic impacts directly related to housing af f ordability. " 
(C&R. 363.) The C&R further admits that no mitigation measures have 
been taken relating to the aff ordability of housing in the County. 
It is imperative that sufficient housing mitigation measures be 
taken to correct the anticipated problems. As required by the CEQA 
Guidelines, section 15131(c), public agencies must consider 
economic, social, and particularly housing factors in deciding 
whether changes in a project are feasible. 

We also strongly disagree with the Draft EIR's assertions 
that the Airport expansion will ameliorate the current jobs/housing 
imbalance in the area. (C&R. 361.) The C&R asserts, without true 
supporting data, on page 360 that: "By creating more jobs in San 
Mateo County, implementation of the proposed SFIA Master Plan would 
likely create a more balanced situation between jobs and housing in 
the County." If San Mateo County currently has a greater ratio of 
housing to jobs than it requires, then how can the fact that over 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 11 



62% of current Airport employees reside outside the County be 
explained? We believe that the lack of affordability of housing in 
the County is a primary suspect. Because the jobs/housing ratio 
cited by the C&R on page 361 does not take into account the 
affordability of housing units in the County compared to the new 
employees' income levels, that ratio is largely useless. 

The C&R's analysis entitled "Housing Impacts and 
Significance Criteria" on pages 354-55 is suspect. This analysis 
of housing demand compared to jobs is illogical. The lack of 
affordable housing in San Mateo County is a significant problem, as 
discussed above. Comparing the project's share of the local labor 
force to the proportion of total local housing units used by new 
employees is an invalid comparison because it does not take into 
account the question of affordability. The analysis attempts to 
define away the housing problem, while at the same time conceding 
that there is a jobs/housing imbalance. 

Urban planners sometimes measure housing demand by 
balancing the number of jobs against the total Bay Area housing 
stock, such as was done in the last paragraph on page 359 of the 
C&R. However, the real impact of housing demand in this case 
should be measured against the housing stock in the area of the 
project (i.e., San Mateo and San Francisco counties), because 
housing demand affects local prices and affordability. 

The Responses assert that no mitigation is necessary for 
the change in the jobs/housing balance in San Mateo County because 
an imbalance will be corrected. (C&R. 361.) The measurement of the 
jobs/housing balance in terms of the entire County is suspect here, 
because northern San Mateo County may well be considered a 
different housing market than the southern part of the County. 
This factor should also be taken into consideration when 
calculating effects on the jobs/housing balance. 

The C&R responses on pages C&R. 354-55 were included 
because the Draft EIR had failed to take into account housing 
impacts. However, the Responses assert that there will be no 
significant impacts on housing because the percentage of San Mateo 
County housing units utilized by Airport employees will remain 
stable at approximately half of the percentage of San Mateo County 
jobs located at the Airport. (C&R. 355.) This ratio simply cannot 
be used as a measure for the potential significance of housing 
impacts. The ratio is totally irrelevant to the question of 
whether housing in the County will be affected by the Airport 
expansion. The Response measures apples and oranges. 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 12 



To the contrary, the C&R makes plain that the expansion's 
effect on housing will be significant. Since this is so, the Draft 
EIR should be recirculated for public comment. 

Moreover, as the significant adverse impacts on housing 
were not considered a factor in the Draft EIR's traffic analysis, 
should not the traffic analysis also be reanalyzed and recirculated 
to account for these impacts? The C&R admits that the lack of 
affordable housing in San Mateo County will contribute to adverse 
traffic impacts. The C&R concedes that many of the new employees 
"may choose to live in outlying parts of the region or communities 
outside of the Bay Area. If this were to occur, the extended 
commuting distance traveled by these individuals would result in 
additional physical impacts." (C&R. 363.) The EIR admits that it 
does not have adequate data to analyze these impacts. 

The Airport cannot have it both ways. If there is a 
housing problem in the area, then additional traffic problems from 
the Airport expansion will occur due to the expected extended 
commuting. Cumulative impacts are likely to occur. Additional 
analysis and mitigation are, therefore, required. The Draft EIR as 
written should not be certified, as it does not adequately analyze 
and mitigate suspected housing and traffic impacts. 

The Airport also cannot have it both ways by creating a 
housing problem by expanding the Airport and, at the same time, by 
engaging in unacceptable practices over the past several years to 
attempt to prohibit housing development from occurring on sites 
that are perfectly compatible with housing development under 
federal, state and local noise standards. 

Examples include: 

* Shearwater 

In 1986, the Airport opposed housing near the 
Airport when it challenged in court an EIR for a housing 
project in South San Francisco called Shearwater, 
effectively killing the project. 

* Sierra Point 

In 1991, the Airport entered into an Agreement with 
the City of South San Francisco to provide an additional 
$10 million to that city for much-needed noise insulation 
funds (see section 1, above, on the inadequacy of the 
insulation program) , in exchange for the city's 






San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 13 



prohibition of residential development on lands east of 
U.S. Highway 101. (This prohibition also included the 
Shearwater site.) 

The true nature of the Airport's $10 million Agreement 
with South San Francisco is mischaracterized in the C&R, which 
declares that "The agreement does not prohibit housing east of US 
101." (C&R. 3 6 7.) Under the terms of the Agreement, the Airport 
has agreed to give $10 million to South San Francisco if it 
prohibits the area from being developed for residential use. If 
South San Francisco were to allow housing in that area, all funding 
to the city from the Airport under the Agreement would cease. 
Therefore, to state that the Agreement does not prohibit housing is 
to mischaracterize its nature. (Although the C&R asserts that 
Sierra Point Associates' comments incorrectly characterized the 
Agreement, it is the C&R itself which misstates the Agreement's 
true goals, which can only be interpreted to be the prohibition of 
housing. ) 

The C&R also states, incorrectly, that South San 
Francisco is free under the Agreement to "exercise its discretion" 
in taking the land use actions necessary to obtain the $10 million 
from the Airport, thus implying that the Airport is not interfering 
in the city's planning process. (C&R. 367.) This cannot be true — 
why would the Airport have offered the city $10 million simply to 
exercise its discretion? Further, the city's receipt of the money 
is contingent upon the passage of a General Plan amendment that 
prohibits housing in a manner consistent with the Airport's wishes. 
If the development of housing east of Highway 101 were purely a 
local decision, as the C&R implies, the Airport would not be 
involved at all in opposing that housing and offering $10 million 
to South San Francisco to prohibit that housing. 

The Agreement could result in the loss of at least 600 
homes that are planned for construction in the affected area, at 
least 90 of which are reserved for low and moderate-income units. 
(Updated Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan, 
III, Fig. 20, p. 39, Sites 19 and 23, Columns 6, 7, and 8.) 
Because the land where this proposed housing would be built is 
within the acceptable dB CNEL contour range established by the 
Airport Land Use Committee in the Airport Land Use Plan (see Draft 
EIR, Figure 20), the Airport's desire to prohibit housing in that 
area is groundless. Instead of providing mitigation for noise 
impacts, this Agreement will only exacerbate adverse housing 
impacts that are likely to result from the Airport's expansion. 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 14 



The Response states that the Airport opposed the 
Shearwater project and entered into the Agreement to prohibit 
housing at Sierra Point because the projects' development would 
create housing that would be impacted by aircraft overflights. 
(C&R.368.) Yet, the units proposed for Shearwater and Sierra Point 
would not create any new noise problems for the Airport. The sites 
are compatible for residential housing for three reasons. 

First, the proposed development at Shearwater and Sierra 
Point is targeted for sites that are completely compatible, under 
federal, state, and local noise standards, for residential 
development. These lands are located within the 65 or lower CNEL 
contour range. Under federal, state and local law, lands located 
within this CNEL range are compatible for residential use. (See, 
e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 21, sections 5001(1), 
5012, and 5014.) Based upon the data in the C&R showing the 
expected departure routes and expected noise levels at these sites 
due to the Airport's expansion, housing is clearly a compatible use 
of the properties. Second, the properties will become even more 
suitable as sites for housing because the total land area impacted 
by airport noise shrinks substantially by 1996, as the Draft EIR 
predicts. (Draft EIR, Figures 20, 32.) Third, the Airport has 
historically given its blessing to the development of housing in 
noise contour areas of 65 CNEL or less. In the Final Technical 
Report of the Joint Action Plan of 1980, the Airport endorsed the 
prohibition of new housing in the 70-75 CNEL range, the requirement 
of insulation within the 65-70 CNEL range, and the requirement of 
acoustical studies within the 60+ CNEL range. New housing in areas 
below 70 CNEL was allowed. Therefore, the Airport's argument that 
the sites are incompatible for residential use is, put simply, 
wrong . 

In sum, the Airport proposes noise insulation with an 
avigation easement as a sufficient mitigation in the EIR for the 
Airport's expansion. Yet at the same time, the Airport has been 
taking steps to prohibit housing in areas where insulation could 
clearly solve noise impacts, if any actually existed, by claiming 
that noise insulation will not be sufficient. The Airport cannot 
have it both ways. Such inconsistency makes no sense. 

The housing problem arising from the Airport expansion 
can be solved, in part by cooperation between public agencies and 
private developers. Several sites exist within the vicinity of the 
Airport that could provide additional housing for various income 
segments of the community. Potential housing sites such as Sierra 
Point and the Shearwater site in South San Francisco provide good 
examples of properties that should be fully endorsed by the Airport 
as appropriate locations for housing for new Airport employees. 
Noise easements, noise attenuation, and disclosure statements on 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 15 



noise for new residential development can be imposed at these 
sites. Recently, a successful Memorandum of Understanding was 
entered into between the City of San Leandro, the City of Oakland, 
and Citation Homes Central that contained all of these practical 
noise mitigation measures. The installation of appropriate noise 
mitigation at these sites to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB 
CNEL could also be required as a condition of development. 

Housing at the Shearwater and Sierra Point sites would 
constitute "in-fill" of an urbanized area and, as such, would be 
sound public policy. According to a report by the Greenbelt 
Alliance of December 1983, by adopting a new course based on 
compact city-centered development policies, the Bay Area can meet 
its housing needs. 1 The report concludes that there is a need for 
more housing close to employment. 2 The Bay Vision 20/20 Commission 
made similar findings in 1991. According to the Commission's 
report, urban growth should be managed so that new development 
takes place wherever possible within existing urbanized areas. 3 
For the reasons set forth above, the Airport should not attempt to 
prohibit housing at the Sierra Point site. 

In short, due to the significant housing impacts that can 
be expected from the Airport expansion, adequate housing mitigation 
measures must be incorporated into the EIR before it is certified 
as final. Revision and recirculation of the EIR is mandated to 
comply with CEQA. 

4. Other Issues : 

a. Lack of Good Faith. Reasoned Analysis : The 
C&R, at page 366, misstates the comments of Sierra Point Associates 
Two regarding the Draft EIR. The Response therefore violates the 
requirement in section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines that 
" [t]here must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response" to 
comments on a draft EIR. 

b. Inadequate Analysis of Project Alternatives: 
It is unclear whether the thorough analysis required by CEQA 

of project alternatives involving distribution of aircraft activity 



'Room Enough: Housing and Open Space in the Bay Area: The 
Report of the Housing/Greenbelt Program of People for Open Space, 
Greenbelt Alliance (December 1983), p. 5. 

2 Id. at p. 19. 

3 Bay Vision 20/20: The Commission Report (May 1991), p. 29. 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 16 



to other Bay Area airports has been done in this case. The Draft 
EIR admits that redistribution of aviation demand to other airports 
is recommended by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 
Caltrans, FAA, and other Bay Area airports. (Draft EIR, p. 468.) 
The Draft EIR also notes that, in 1987, the United States 
Department of Transportation, the FAA, and the San Francisco Bay 
Area Task Force Capacity Study of the Airport recommended "the 
distribution of traffic more evenly among the three Bay Area 
airports." (Draft EIR, p. 70.) Adjacent cities such as South San 
Francisco have similar policy statements in the Noise Elements of 
their General Plans. 

An editorial in the San Francisco Examiner on September 
9, 1991 noted, 

"[the Draft EIR treated] the expansion in isolation, 
oblivious to what might be going on nearby (e.g. a 
possible baseball stadium across the freeway) . . .The 
proposal for greatly increased airline operations calls 
out for a regional approach. Doesn't it make sense to 
provide for more of the additional services east of the 
Bay, saving thousands of travelers from having to make 
longer trips on clogged bridges and freeways?..." 

The Draft EIR asserts that it rejected the alternative of 
redistributing potential aircraft activity to other airports 
because "it would not meet the sponsor's objective to accommodate 
the demand from forecast growth at SFIA." (Draft EIR, p. 475.) 
Yet these forecast figures may be incorrect. It seems illogical 
that the Draft EIR forecasts that the Airport will still have 
between 63-70% of the Bay Area's passengers in 2006, given the 
adverse impacts that will be created and the continuing trend in 
the Bay Area of population growth in outlying areas. A more 
thorough analysis must be undertaken, as it is critical to proper 
decision-making as to the degree of expansion needed at this 
particular airport. 

The planned expansion also appears to be inconsistent 
with regional transportation plans for the Bay Area. The C&R 
states: "It is acknowledged that the SFIA Master Plan would be 
inconsistent with both MTC's 1980-recommended policy limit and with 
MTC's subsequently revised regional market share recommendations." 
(C&R. 14.) 

Does the planned expansion at this particular location 
make sense in terms of regional planning for the entire Bay Area? 
The C&R notes that, "... as suggested by commenters, it is 
reasonable to assume that the lack of capacity (or "bottlenecks") 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 17 



in any of a number of locations or functional areas could constrain 
future SFIA passenger volumes, cargo activities, or other 
operations." (C&R. 15.) The C&R concedes that, "If the Master Plan 
were to be implemented, the effective result could be an overbuilt 
airport." (C&R. 33.) If this is true, the Airport should revise 
the Master Plan to be consistent with regional policies and to 
avoid overbuilding. A full-bore alternatives analysis that is 
consistent with other regional transportation plans must be 
implemented before the Draft EIR is certified. 

c. Inadequate Analysis of Cumulative Impacts : 
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more separate 
impacts which, when considered together, are considerable, or which 
compound or increase other environmental impacts. (CEQA 
Guidelines, section 15355.) CEQA requires that such cumulative 
impacts be analyzed. As described above, the Draft EIR may not 
have adequately considered (1) the cumulative impacts of housing 
demand on traffic impacts, and vice versa, or (2) other cumulative 
impacts. Although the Draft EIR's Mitigation Measures (see Section 
V) do discuss some cumulative-impact mitigation measures, the EIR 
does not separately analyze all of the cumulative impacts that can 
be expected from the expansion, as required. Because this analysis 
has not been done, it is impossible to know whether the Airport 
will be taking on the responsibility of mitigating its fair share 
of any cumulative impacts from this project. 

Conclusion : In conclusion, it is clear that the Draft 
EIR and C&R are deficient in several respects. There are 
insufficient data to support the EIR's assertions, many of which 
are suspect. For example, noise, traffic, and housing mitigation 
measures are called for to mitigate adverse impacts of the Airport 
expansion. Before specific measures are proposed, however, a 
thorough analysis of the impacts must be undertaken. 

Therefore, we request that the Draft EIR not be certified 
as final, that the required additional studies and analyses be 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
May 20, 1992 
Page 18 



undertaken, that appropriate mitigation measures then be adopted, 
and that a new Draft EIR be circulated for public comment. 



Very truly yours, 





[ John 



Briscoe 



Mayor Frank Jordan, City of San Francisco 

Kevin Shelley, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Senator Quentin Kopp 

Assemblywoman Jackie Speier 

William Schumacher, President, San Mateo County Board of 

Supervisors 
Mayor Brad Kerwin, City of Brisbane 
Mayor John Penna, City of South San Francisco 
Douglas Thomas, The Koll Company 



HIGHLIGHTS 

of 

NEW NOISE VARIANCE/INSULATION PROGRAM 



Since 1983, San Francisco International Airport has been managing a home noise-insulation program 
designed to shield residents under flight paths from the deafening sound of jet takeoffs. The program is 
not working. 

Under the current noise variance/insulation program guidelines, in place since 1986, it would take more 
than 100 years to properly soundproof all affected homes. 

Elected officials from some of the communities near the airport have proposed a new noise variance that 
calls for an increased amount of money from SFO for the noise insulation program so that all impacted 
residences will be insulated for noise by the end of the year 2000. It also contains provisions to decrease 
the noise levels. 

Highlights of the new variance include: 

* All uninsulated homes in Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco and 
unincorporated San Mateo - built before 1983 and previously identified as significantly affected by 
airport noise — are eligible for insulation. 

* All eligible homes would be insulated by the end of the year 2000 pursuant to Airport Roundtable 
Policy. 

* The airport would guarantee a contribution of at least $20 million annually from all available sources 
to fund the insulation effort. Its own contribution of $4 million annually would allow impacted 
communities to obtain 80 percent of the $20 million through FAA matching funds, but the airport 
would also guarantee to cover any shortfall if the FAA does not provide its full share. 

* The airport would no longer have discretion over the allocation of funds. The funds would be 
allocated by a formula that takes into account the number of uninsulated homes in individual 
communities. 

* The airport would be prohibited from increasing the size of the noise exposure area beyond its 
current size of .92 square miles, which was defined by SFO's 1991 Third Quarter Noise Report. 

* A performance-based noise surcharge calling for noisier aircraft to pay higher fees would be 
instituted to provide a portion of the $20 million. 

* A curfew would be established prohibiting the use of noisy aircraft and power run-ups between the 
FAA -defined nighttime hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 

* The shifting of noise from one community to another by altering paths would be prohibited. 

* The airport would be required to write a letter to the FAA and its tenant airlines asking that certain 
procedures be followed to minimize the number of low-altitude flights over Brisbane, South San 
Francisco, Pacifica, Foster City, Burlingame and Hillsborough. Violators would be reported to the 
Roundtable. 

* Airport would now be required to comply with federal and state regulations and policies and also the 
local Joint Land Use Study. 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 
NOISE VARIANCE/INSULATION PROGRAM 

Questions and Answers 

Since 1983, San Francisco International Airport has been managing a home noise-insulation 
program designed to shield residents under flight paths from the deafening sound of jet 
takeoffs. The program is not working. 

Under the current noise variance/insulation program guidelines, in effect since 1986, it would 
take more than 100 years to properly soundproof all impacted homes. 

Elected officials from some of the communities near the airport have proposed a new noise 
variance that calls for an increased amount of money from SFO for the noise insulation 
program so that all impacted residences will be insulated for noise by the end of the year 
2000. It also contains additional provisions to decrease the noise levels. 

As the following information clearly indicates, San Francisco airport must adopt a more 
aggressive approach to resolving the noise problems created by its airplanes. According to 
statistics provided here, SFO has not kept pace with the goals of its residential noise- 
insulation program. It also lags far behind the performances of comparable U.S. airports in 
responding to the noise problems of surrounding residents. 

JL • V^ • What jurisdictions are eligible to receive noise insulation 

funds? 



A: 



Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, San 
Bruno Park School District and San Mateo County. 



L • V^ * How long has the local program been in existence? 

A l 10 years - from 1983 to 1992. 



Page 1 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 
NOISE VARIANCE/INSULATION PROGRAM 

Questions and Answers 

(continued) 



«3 • \£ • How many single-family homes are eligible for the program? 

How many have been insulated so far? 



A. • A map SFO filed in 1983 in response to federal noise regulations 
identified a total of 10,550 dwellings that required sound insulation. A 
total of 515 were insulated between 1983 and 1992. There are 319 
dwellings either being insulated or out to bid. This leaves a total of 9,7 16 
remaining to be insulated. 

At the current rate of 83 dwellings a year, it would take approximately 1 17 
years to insulate the residences currently impacted by airport noise. 

4 • V^ • How does the number of uninsulated homes compare with the 

number of noise-affected homes identified by SFO? 



A: 



There are currently 9,716 dwellings that are legally eligible for, and in 
need of, sound insulation. SFO identifies 5,239 as "noise impacted", 
creating a discrepancy of 4,477. 

Why the Discrepancy? Because SFO considers the homes identified as 
"noise affected" in its most recent quarterly report on noise mitigation as 
those still in need of insulation. Their number is smaller because the 
number of homes where noise levels exceed federal limits have actually 
decreased since 1983, primarily because newer airplanes make less noise. 
However, SFO is still required to abide by a map it filed with the FAA in 
1983 that identifies 9,716 dwellings still in need of sound-proofing. By 
promoting the smaller figure, SFO creates the false impression that it has 
insulated a greater percentage of affected dwellings than it actually has. 



Page 2 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORi 
NOISE VARIANCE/INSULATION PROGRAM 

Questions and Answers 

(continued) 



^ • V^ • Has SFO compiled with the terms of its variance? 



A • No. Based upon the November 1986 Variance, SFO was required to 
reduce the number of impacted homes by 500 homes per year to a level 
not to exceed 6,000 by June 1990. Therefore, SFO has not complied 
with the stipulated terms of its variance. 

V^ I How much money has SFO provided to the local noise 
mitigation program and how has their performance compared 
to those of other airports? 

A. • SFO, the fifth busiest Airport in the country, ranks 21st in providing local 
noise mitigation funds. By comparison, Atlanta's airport, which is 
comparable to SFO in activity (third busiest) and landing fees (71 cents 
per 1000 pounds compared to SFO's fee of 75 cents per 1000 pounds) 
ranks number one in noise insulation funding. During the past 10 
years, Atlanta has been very responsive to its community by insulating at 
least 10,000 homes (the total size of SFO's obligation) by providing in 
excess of $46 million of their own money and receiving in excess of $1 85 
million from the FAA. SFO has insulated only 515 homes by providing 
only $2.7 million of their own funds, thereby restricting contributions 
from the FAA to only $10.8 million. 



Page 3 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 
NOISE VARIANCE/INSULATION PROGRAM 

Questions and Answers 

(continued) 



/ • V£ • Can SFO afford to pay for an improved noise insulation 

program? 



A. • Yes. If the airport can afford a $2 billion expansion, it can afford to first 
solve its existing noise problem. SFO currently has in excess of $40 
million in reserves and also the best credit rating of any airport in the 
country. Additional funds can be provided by raising the airline landing 
fee; allocating FAA Entitlement Funds for noise insulation; and by 
increasing the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) and making those funds 
available for noise insulation. The airport is currently considering 
increasing the PFC to pay for its $2 billion expansion. 

SFO has other lucrative funding sources, including additional bonding 
capacity and parking and concession revenue. 

O • \£ • Would increased landing fees (to pay for an improved noise 

insulation program) create a competitive disadvantage for 
SFO, thereby causing a loss of jobs and business to the local 
community? 



No. SFO, the country's fifth busiest airport , ranks 25th in landing fees. 
The highest landing fees (La Guardia) are 420 percent higher than SFO's. 
If landing fees cannot cover 100 percent of the improved noise insulation 
program, other funding sources are identified in Question 7. 



Page 4 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPOkf 
NOISE VARIANCE/INSULATION PROGRAM 

Questions and Answers 

(continued) 



j • vj[ I Is now the time to seek an improved variance/noise insulation 

program? 

A I Yes. SFO has not kept pace with some of the more community - 
responsive airports in the country. The noise variance technically expired 
in 1989. At that time, local communities decided to wait until the airport 
expansion plans were unveiled and its impacts assessed. Now that they 
have had time to do that, it would be an appropriate time to move forward 
with a new variance. Also, the local community has leverage over SFO. 
The Airport needs local support to get its expansion and BART plans 
approved. At this time, the airport cannot afford to alienate its neighbors. 

X U • V^ * What is the total amount of money needed from SFO to 
insulate all the remaining homes? 

A. I There are currently 9,716 homes in need of sound-proofing insulation. At 
an inflation-adjusted cost of $14,000 per home, a total of $136,024,000 is 
needed to complete the task. SFO is responsible for 20 percent of that 
total or $27,204,800. 

It is estimated that all affected homes could be insulated in seven years. 
The airport would need to provide $3,886,400 a year plus an additional 
$500,000 for administrative costs for an annual total of $4,386,400. This 
figure can be rounded down to $4 million. 

XX* V^ • What additional provisions are in the newly proposed 
variance to decrease noise levels? 

A • A limit on the size of the noise-exposure area. The implementation of a 
Noise Performance Surcharge for all aircraft based on the noise they 
create which requires noisier airplanes to pay higher fees. And the 
creation of a curfew that would prohibit flights by noisier airplanes at 
night. 



Page 5 



PROPOSED VARIANCE TO BE ISSUED BY 

CALTRANS TO SFO 

1992 



The City and County of San Francisco is hereby granted a variance 
to operate San Francisco International Airport ( "Airport ••) for a 
period of three years commencing upon the effective date hereof and 
upon the following conditions: 

I. The goals, objectives and recommendations of the Joint Land 
Use Study shall essentially be used as the framework within 
which the Airport will act to mitigate its noise impact on 
surrounding communities, with emphasis on four key aspects of 
the Joint Land Use Study: 

A. A basic goal is compliance with the California Airport 
Noise Standards. 

B. First priority, and the primary method, for reduction of 
noise impacts shall be on-Airport actions, such as 
requiring quieter planes and reducing evening and night 
operations. 

C. To supplement the on-Airport noise mitigation actions, 
the remaining noise impacts will be addressed through a 
land-use compatibility program that provides significant 
mitigation of noise exposure on existing non-compatible 
uses. 

D. The intent of the noise mitigation programs will be to 
eliminate adversely affected noise sensitive land use 
areas by the end of the year 2000. The noise mitigation 
programs to be implemented will include insulation of all 
single and multi-family residential units ("dwelling 
units") and all schools, hospitals, churches, and other 
public buildings ("public use buildings") and other noise 
sensitive land uses in the 65 dB+ CNEL area using the FAR 
Part 150 Study Noise Exposure Map submitted by the 
Airport to the Federal Aviation Administration on 
February 28, 1983 (a copy of the map is attached as 
Exhibit A) . 

As background information : 

. Using the FAR Part 150 Map, there are at 
least 10,551 dwelling units within the 
65+dB CNEL area. Since the inception of 
the existing noise insulation program in 
1983, only approximately 319 homes have 

Page 1 



been insulated, and 515 homes are 
currently under construction or out to 
bid, leaving at least 9,717 uninsulated 
hones. 

At this historical rate of home 
insulation, it would take at least 100 
years to completely insulate all currently 
existing noise-impacted dwelling units, 
which is unacceptable. Hence it is 
necessary to accelerate the program, 
including a requirement to increase the 
funding requirements of the Airport. 

The estimated total cost of insulating the 
remaining noise impacted dwelling units is 
at least $130 million. 



II. The Airport shall continue to implement its Airport Noise 
Mitigation Action Plan ("ANMAP") in accordance with the 
following amendments: 

A. The size of the Noise Impact Area shall not exceed 0.92 
square miles (The size of the Noise Impact Area shown in 
the Quarterly Noise Report, SFIA, Third Quarter 1991, 
attached as EXHIBIT B .) . 

B. The Airport will undertake actions necessary to control 
noise exposure so as to reduce the Noise Impact Area as 
defined in Section II. A. These actions may include, but 
are not limited to, the following: 

1. Enforcement of San Francisco Airport's Commission 
noise regulations adopted in Commission Resolution 
88-0016, as amended by the Commission hereafter, 
provided that amendments to the Noise Control 
Regulations which would permit increased noise 
exposure shall require the approval of CalTrans; 

2. Enactment of other noise control measures deemed 
appropriate by the Commission; 

3. Expansion of the program described in Section 
III. A., as appropriate. 

C. For purposes of determining whether noise-sensitive land 
uses exist within the noise impact area, the following 
shall not be considered noise-sensitive land uses: 



Page 2 



1. Dwelling units or public use buildings as described 
in Paragraph I.D. above which have been insulated 
against aircraft noise to meet state noise 
attenuation standards; 

2. Dwelling units or public use buildings for which 
permits for new construction have been issued or 
obtained after the approval by the Federal Aviation 
Administration of the Noise Exposure Map described 
in Paragraph I.D., except that this exclusion shall 
not apply to dwelling units or public use buildings 
in the event that aircraft-generated noise exceeds 
the levels shown in the Quarterly Noise Report 
described in Paragraph II. A.; and 

3. Dwelling units which have been acquired by the 
Airport. 

III. The Airport shall, in conjunction with and in cooperation with 
other agencies where applicable, do the following: 

A. Commencing with calendar year 1992, the Airport shall 
guarantee annual funding for the Noise Insulation Program 
Fund in an initial annual amount of at least Twenty 
Million Dollars ($20,000,000) from all sources, including 
FAA matching grants provided to the local jurisdictions. 
The $20,000,000, as adjusted annually hereafter (as 
provided in paragraph III. A. 4 below), may be provided 
through a combination of: Airport funds (as provided in 
Paragraph III.A.l below) ; FAA matching grants provided to 
the local jurisdictions (as provided in paragraph III. A. 2 
below) ; and, other sources including FAA discretionary 
grants to the Airport, so-called "entitlement funding" 
due to the Airport, Passenger Facility Charges ("PFC") 
adopted by the Airport, and the Noise Surcharge described 
in Paragraph III.B. below. From this Noise Insulation 
Program Fund, up to Five Hundred Thousand and No/lOOths 
Dollars ($500,000.00) per annum may be used for 
administration by the local jurisdiction or entity 
administering the program. 

The implementation of the program will be as follows: 

1. The Airport shall, commencing in 1992 and 
continuing each year thereafter, deposit at least 
Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) into a trust 
fund ("trust fund") administered by the Airport. 
This annual Airport contribution may be used as the 
local matching funds required in order for the 
local jurisdictions to obtain 80% funding through 

Page 3 



FAA grants (Note: Given a $4.0 million annual 
contribution from the Airport, $16 million of FAA 
funds could be received, resulting in a total 
funding of $20 million from only these two 
sources.). However, regardless of the amount of 
FAA funds received, all of the Airport's annual 
contribution to the trust fund shall be distributed 
annually to local jurisdictions for use in the 
Noise Insulation Program. 

2. Affected jurisdictions (city or county in which any 
portion of the noise impact area is located) shall 
apply each year to the FAA for an amount equal to 
80% of its annual apportionment (as described in 
Paragraph III. A. 3. below). The Airport will 
endeavor to assist the local jurisdictions to 
maximize the FAA contributions through the FAA's 
Airport Improvement Program ("AIP") and to expedite 
the process of filing of applications as 
efficiently as possible. The amount of any FAA 
grant received by the affected jurisdiction in that 
year shall be credited against its annual 
apportionment from the Noise Insulation Program 
Fund, and the Airport shall pay to the affected 
jurisdiction (or other entity administering the 
program) from the trust fund an amount equal to the 
required local matching funds for the FAA grant. 
To the extent that the total amount received by a 
local jurisdiction in any year from an FAA grant 
plus the 20% matching fund is less than the local 
jurisdiction's apportioned share of the Noise 
Insulation Program Fund (as provided in Paragraph 
III. A. 3. below), the Airport shall pay to the 
affected jurisdiction the shortfall. 

3. The Noise Insulation Program Fund will be 
apportioned annually to each of the affected 
jurisdictions proportionally, according to the 
numbers of eligible noise-impacted dwelling units 
at the beginning of the term of this variance (e.g. 
the total number of uninsulated dwelling units less 
the number of units for which noise insulation is 
under construction or out to bid from previously 
appropriated funds). Annual apportionment funds, 
if not used by the jurisdiction in the year of 
apportionment, may be used by that jurisdiction 
within four (4) years after the year of 
apportionment. At the end of the four (4) years, 
funds remaining from an annual apportionment will 
be reallocated among all affected jurisdictions 



Page 4 



according to the apportionment provisions in effect 
at that time. 

4. These annual obligations of the Airport shall be 
adjusted each year (but not reduced) by the amount 
of any increase in the Consumer Price Index, All 
Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San 
Jose S.M.S.A. from the index for July 1991 to the 
index for July preceding the year in question. 

5. For purposes of administering this program, a 
"Joint Powers Authority" may be formed by the 
jurisdictions eligible to receive funds from the 
trust fund. That authority may elect to apportion 
funds in any given year in a manner different than 
that described above. 

6. The municipalities or Joint Powers Authority 
administering the noise insulation program shall be 
responsible for obtaining a noise easement from the 
owners of dwelling units and public use buildings 
insulated with Noise Insulation Program Funds. The 
easement granted shall be in the form of the 
standard form noise easement attached as EXHIBIT C . 

7. For purposes of eligibility for the noise 
insulation program, the integrity of neighborhoods 
will be maintained in the administration of noise 
mitigation programs along boundaries of the "noise 
impact area". No neighborhood shall be divided 
along lines of noise contours so that a portion 
outside the 65 dB+ CNEL boundary is ineligible; 
division of a neighborhood shall be only along a 
natural definitive boundary line (e.g. , subdivision 
line, major arterial street) . 

B. To provide funding for the Noise Insulation Program Fund 
and to provide incentives for noise reduction by aircraft 
operators, commencing no later than one (1) year after 
the date of approval of this variance, the Airport shall 
institute collection of a performance-based noise 
surcharge ("Noise Surcharge") to the landing fees. 
Examples include the environmental fee charged by Palm 
Beach Airport. The proceeds shall be deposited into the 
trust fund to provide funding of the Airport's obligation 
under Paragraph III. A. The Noise Surcharge shall be 
based upon the actual performance of the aircraft as 
measured at sideline monitors appropriately located for 
this purpose. An additional weight shall be added to 
recorded performance for evening and night operations, in 
at least the same ratio as additional weighting in 

Page 5 



calculating CNEL. The Airport shall fund and install the 
equipment required to measure the performance data to be 
used in determining the amounts of the Noise Surcharge. 
This may include relocation of one or more monitors. 

C. Airport shall require each airline, as a condition to 
renewal of its lease, to submit an annual report on or 
before the first day of September of each year, which 
report shall include the airline's plans for acquiring 
new aircraft within the year, the airline's plans for re- 
engining existing aircraft, and the expected impact of 
such plans upon noise reduction. Lease renewals shall 
also require compliance with the hours restrictions in 
III.D. below. 

D. The Airport shall establish a curfew prohibiting the 
scheduling of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft departures 
during night time hours as defined by the FAA of 10:00 
P.M. to 7:00 A.M. This curfew shall be applicable to all 
turbo- jet/turbo-fan aircraft and "transport category" 
propeller driven aircraft. The Airport shall also 
prohibit power run-ups between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. 
by mounted engines. 

E. Airport shall not knowingly permit or authorize and shall 
oppose any activity which results in a shifting of 
aircraft-generated noise from one community to another 
within the airport environs, including the cities of San 
Francisco and Oakland. This prohibition, however, shall 
not apply to temporary increases in CNEL's resulting from 
temporary increased use of certain runways because of 
construction or repair of others, or for other causes 
beyond the control of the Airport (e.g. weather, or wind 
conditions) , nor shall it apply to temporary increases in 
the CNEL boundaries resulting from tests conducted to 
determine the feasibility of noise mitigation measures. 
Airport shall consult potentially affected municipalities 
prior to conducting said tests. 

F. The Airport shall seek relief from low-altitude 
overflights of the communities of Brisbane, San 
Francisco, South San Francisco and Pacifica by requesting 
that the FAA direct aircraft to fly the assigned SID as 
published and eliminate premature and delayed turns over 
the San Francisco Peninsula. For Runway 1 departures, 
any turn prior to three (3) miles from the end of the 
runway shall be deemed premature. For Runway 28 
departures which require a right turn, turns after one 
(1) mile from the end of the runway shall be deemed 
delayed turns. The Airport shall also request the FAA to 
maximize use of published approach paths and to avoid use 

Page 6 



of other vectors, to reduce low-altitude overflights of 
Foster City, Burlingame, and Hillsborough. Such requests 
to the FAA shall be made annually in writing, with copies 
to the Chief Pilot of all carriers operating from the 
Airport with a request that it be circulated to air crews 
operating at the Airports. A report of the numbers of 
aircraft making premature and delayed turns or making 
offtrack low-altitude arrivals compiled from the data 
acquired by the tracking system employed in the Noise 
Control Office shall be provided to the Airport/Community 
Roundtable. The report shall state the date and time of 
the flight, the name of the carrier, flight number, and 
aircraft type. The Airport shall fund and install any 
additional equipment required to monitor flights and 
collect data required for the report. 

G. In order to ensure that State Noise Monitoring 
Regulations contained in Title XXI, subchapter 6, Article 
8 of the California Administrative Code are complied with 
and that noise contour lines are developed with greatest 
accuracy, the Airport agrees to have CalTrans, or an 
independent consultant selected by CalTrans, annually 
review the Airport's noise monitoring system (including 
calibration of monitors and map preparation) . The 
Airport agrees to take whatever action to achieve 
compliance CalTrans directs as a result of such review. 

IV. The Airport shall comply with all regulations and policies set 
forth by the Federal and State Governments. The Airport shall 
also comply with all programs and polices established in the 
Joint Land Use Study and the FAR Part 150 Study regarding 
eligibility for noise insulation funding and land use 
approvals by local government. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 
the Airport shall not be precluded from adopting stricter 
noise standards for aircraft operations than FAA requirements. 



Page 7 



<S .:.•■ ;■; i •":■•>. • * *, 



// 



SAN FRANCISCO 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



JULY 7, 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JUL 2 4 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATT1SON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 
MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Ai rports Commi ssion 

July 7, 1992 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

June 16, 199? 3 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 3 

F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
& MAINTENANCE: 

1. Applicability of Host Food & 
Beverage MBE/WBE Sublease Plan 

to Host & City Employees 3 

2. Mod. of Bod Counsel Contract 4 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

3. Amendment to Noise Abatement Reg. 

in Response to Q707 Decision 4 

4. Amendments & Additions to Rules & 
Regs. Incl. Changes to Permit Regs. 

Governing Limousine Operations 4 

5. Reimbursement for Relocation Costs - 
Thomas Cook Foreign Currency 

Exchange Services, Inc. 4 

6. Children's Participatory Museum - 

Endorsement of Concept 4 

7. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 4 

8. Travel/Training for FY 1992/93 4 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

9. Hearing on Airport Master Plan 5 

10. Hearing jn FY1992/93 Rates & 

Charges 5 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 5 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 5 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 

Potential Litigation 5 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 5 



Minutes, Jul* 7, 199? Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

July 7, 1992 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request, 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:05 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, S..n Francisco, Ca. 

* * * 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 

L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

James K. Ho 

Marie K. Brooks 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of June 16, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0198 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0197 regarding the settlment of a 
claim for Carol Sitzenstatter at the 
closed session of June 16, 1992. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Murphy welcomed Commissioner Brooks to the Commission, 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos . 1 and 2 were adopted unanimously. 

1 . Resolution Considering the Applicability of the Host International 
Food and Beverage MBE/hBE Sublease Plan to Host and City Employees 

No. 92-0 

Minute* July 7, 1992, Page 3 



2. Modification of Bond Counsel Jontract 

No. 92-01 Resolution authorizing modification of 

Bond Counsel Contract with Orrick 
Herrington & Sutcliffe and Pamela S. 
Jue. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
Item nos. 3 through 8 were adopted unanimously. 

3. Amendment to Noise Abatement Regulation in Response to Q707 Decision 
No. 92-01 



4. Amendments and Additions to the Airports Rule & Regulations Including 
Changes to the Permit Regulations Governing Limousine Operations 

No. 92-01 



5. Reimbursement for Relocation Costs 

Thomas Cook Foreign Currency Services, Inc. 

No. 92-01 Resolution authorizing a reimbursement 

for relocation costs to Thomas Cook 
Foreign Currency Services, Inc., not 
to exceed $18,311 . 



Children's Participatory Museum - Endorsement of Concept 

No. 92-01 Resolution endorsing the concept of a 

Children's Participatory Museum to be 
constructed in the Airport and 
authorizing staff to begin the 
planning of such a facility. 



7. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 92-01 Resolution, in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



8. Travel/Training for FY 1992/93 
No. 92-01 



Minutes, July 7, 1992. Page 4 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was convened at 10:19 A.M. and adjourned at 12:07 P.M., 
there being no further comments from the public. 

9. Hearing on the Airport Master Plan 



The public hearing was convened at 12:08 P.M. and adjourned at 12:09 P.M., 
there being no further comments from the public. 

10. Hearing On FY 1992/93 Rates and Charges 

Hearing concerning the proposed 
terminal rental rates, landing fees 
and jet bridge use fees for FY 1992/93. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Commission may convene in closed session to discuss potential 
litigation in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(B)(1) 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 12:11 PM. 




Ljifrh^uiizr 



im Caramatti 
imission Secretary 



Minutes. July 7 . 1992. Page 5 



July 5, 1992 



Airports Commission 
City & County of San Francisco 
San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco , CA 94128 



Dear Co mmi ssion Members: 

I request postponement of a final decision on the Master Plan and filing of a Notice of 
Determination from July 7, 1992 and July 2f , 1992. I request postponement until Fall, 1992 
for the following reasons: 

concerns listed in the three workshop sessions need to be responded to with feasible miti- 
gation measures 

the ongoing meetings of CCAG's Ad Hoc Committee with the Director of Airports to dis- 
cuss and then develop a mitigation package 

the absence of many impacted citizens from the workshop and hearing process due to end 
of the school year, graduations, and then family vacations 

recent political activity underscoring noise-insulation instead of focus on the underlying 
problem pervading even more communities - the noise-problem, e.g., back-blast in my 
community of Burlingame, as well as in Hillsborough and the Millbrae highlands. 

My constituents who participated in the three workshops call for more time. They seek 
assurance from your commission that you will adopt reasonable mitigation measures pro- 
viding adequate relief from the expansion, or - in the event that such is impossible -commu- 
nity members call for findings that the proposed mitigation measures are unreasonable. 

SFIA lies entirely in San Mateo County. Its impact - current and future - will bear heavily 
on the local communities in our county. Many constituents have asked me why there has 
been no hearing in San Mateo County. I, therefore, request that you hold your next public 
meeting in San Mateo County, preferably on a site providing easy access,adequate space 
and parking. I suggest either Skyline College or College of San Mateo. 

I want to thank each of you for your openness to previous requests for workshops to be held 
in San Mateo County. The presence of one or more of you at these meetings was also 
appreciated. I trust now that you will give a fair hearing to this request for the holding of 
the next public hearing in San Mateo County. 



Yours Sincerely, 

ROSALIE M. O'MAHSNY, Councilwoman, City of Burlingame 



Host International, Inc. MBE/WBE Sublease Plan 

The Host International, Inc. MBE/WBE Sublease Plan Pursuant to Section 13 
of the Modification to Lease (the "Plan") was negotiated among the Airport, various 
community groups, and Host International, Inc. The Plan was approved by the San 
Francisco Airports Commission on February 4, 1992. As a result of a consensus 
between the Airport and the various community groups, it was agreed that 
proponents could come from the six county Bay area but that proponents based in 
San Francisco County would receive a five percent preference in scoring of their 
proposals. The Plan contained no limitation preventing participation by present or 
former employees of Host or the City. 

The Plan spelled out in detail, among other things, the process to be followed 
in soliciting proposals and awarding the subleases to minority business enterprises 
and women business enterprises, the selection criteria to be applied, and the 
membership of the Selection Committee. As stated in the Plan, "Host's goal is to 
award each sublease to the best qualified proponent consistent with the City's desire 
that all of the various groups which make up the City be represented at the Airport". 

Phase I of the Plan, the award of subleases for The Carousel Shop, The Golden 
Gate Bar and Snack Bar #8, and The Vista Bar and "TCBY', has been completed and 
the three subtenants approved by the Airports Commission on June 16th are now 
conducting operations at the Airport. 

As indicated on the accompanying exhibits, thirty seven proposals were 
submitted for the sublease for the Carousel Shop, with one proposal being withdrawn 
by the proponent prior to the interview stage. Of the remaining thirty six proposals, 
the five highest scoring proponents (all of which were based in San Francisco County) 
were interviewed by the Selection Committee. Twenty proposals were submitted for 
the sublease for The Golden Gate Bar and Snack Bar #8, with one proposal being 
withdrawn by the proponent prior to the interview stage. Of the remaining nineteen 
proposals, the five highest scoring proponents (three of which were based in San 
Francisco County) were interviewed by the Selection Committee. Twenty four 
proposals were submitted for the sublease of The Vista Bar and "TCBY', with one 
proposal being withdrawn by the proponent prior to the interview stage. Of the 
remaining twenty three proposals, the six highest scoring proponents (three of which 
were based in San Francisco County) were interviewed by the Selection Committee. 

Awards of the three subleases in Phase I resulted in subleases to a women 
business enterprise and two minority business enterprises, one of which was owned 
by an Asian-American and the other by an African-American. 

Requests for proposals have been promulgated for both subleases to be awarded 
in Phase H of the Plan, and nine proponents, five of which are based in San Francisco 
County, have submitted proposals for The Hangar Restaurant and Bar and Employee 
Cafeteria #2. Proposals for La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar are due July 31st. 



The Carousel Shop 

1. Avery McGinn 1,475 

2. Ping Lee and Hong Euey 991 

8. Original Double Rainbow Joint Venture 925 

4. Pathama Parikonont 867 

5. Coronar Group 838 

Thoi Nguyen and Raphael Chan-Sen 634 

Air Faire Enterprises 618 

Carucci and Company 697 

HY Enterprises 694 

A & J Hospitality Management, Co 525 

KEC. & Associates 607 

KASS Management Services, Inc 488 

Eastwind Books & Arts, Inc 486 

Chi-Sheng Tuan 479 

Tan Enterprises 463 

Western Motives 460 

Soo Im Park and Jong Min Park 449 

Group 8 Inc 443 

Winnie Tuan 433 

William & Linda Corley 427 

Walter & Patricia Curd 424 

Eastern Sea, Inc 421 

Alvarado • Scodel 419 

A & B Enterprises 409 

Ashook and Mansoor's Food Services, Inc 401 

Lita L. Sarmiento 872 

Francisca Wikkeling/Cisca's Catering 871 

Committed Group 855 

GGG Associates 352 

Rodolfo Lao & Erotida Lao 351 

C & H Company 350 

Mukesh Chellani 323 

Connie Mei-Yuk and Thomas L. Chan 250 

Hope Airport Partnership 213 

Eyo M. Ahn 160 

Dragon City Restaurant 102 

Bold — Based in San Francisco County 

Italic — At least one Host employee is a principal 

1 proponent with a Host employee principal withdrew prior to the interview stage. 
4 of 36 proponents had a least one Host employee as a principal. 
24 of 36 proponents were based in San Francisco County. 



Snack Bar #8 and The Golden Gate Bar 



1. Susanna Tong 1,341 

2. Ping Lee and Hong Huey 985 

8. Thoi Nguyen and Raphael Chan-Sen 879 

4. Thigpen, Ltd. 873 

5. A & J Hospitality 849 

6. William & Linda Corley 508 

7. Lita L. Sarmiento 600 

8. Loo Im Park and Jong Min Park 498 

9. Winnie Tuan 467 

10. R & B Company 436 

11. Tan Enterprises 430 

12. WJS Food Company 422 

13. Ashook & Mansoor's Food Services Inc 413 

14. Patricia Baltazar 400 

15. Heller Roberts 397 

16. Francisca Wikkeling/Cisca's Catering 878 

17. A & B Enterprises 349 

18. Mukesh Chellani 337 

19. M & B Food Service 287 

Bold - Based in San Francisco County 

Italic - At least one Host employee is a principal 

1 proponent with a Host employee principal withdrew prior to the interview stage. 

2 of 19 proponents had a least one Host employee as a principal. 
10 of 19 proponents where based in San Francisco County. 






The Vista Bar and 'TCBY' 



1. Curd & Curd 1,428 

2. A & J Hospitality 898 

S. Thoi Nguyen and Raphael Chan-Sen 891 

4. Wayne and Clara Chui 858 

5. EASS Management Services, Inc. 858 

6. World Connect, Inc 783 

7. Lata Sarmiento 564 

8. Vista International 535 

9. Soo Lm and Jong Min Park 522 

10. Winnie Tuan 511 

11. Francisca Wikkeling/Cisca's Catering 508 

12. William and Linda Corley 506 

13. SMFC Consultants, Inc 501 

14. Western Motives 459 

15. Check Stop, Inc 453 

16. L & A Company 425 

17. Tan Enterprises, Inc 414 

18. Mukesh Chellani 414 

19. Ashook and Mansoor's Food Service, Inc 378 

20. Kings way Fashions 362 

21. Sophie Tham 802 

22. Elena Espin 271 

23. M & B Food Service 208 

Bold - Based in San Francisco County 

Italic — At least one Host employee is a principal 

1 proponent with a Host employee principal withdrew prior to the interview stage. 
1 of 23 proponents had at least one Host employee as a principal. 
16 of 23 proponents were based in San Francisco County. 






Proponents for The Hangar and Employee Cafeteria #2 

1. A&J Hospitality Management, Inc. 

2. Bcmada Associates 

3. Group 8, Inc. 

4. EASS Management Services, Inc. 

5. K.H.C. & Associates 

6. Rober L. Luster - Luster's Groceries 

7. MLP Enterprises / Curd & Curd 

8. Thoi Nguyen & Raphael Chan-Sew 

9. Western Sports Enterprises, Inc. 



Bold - Based in San Francisco County and will receive a 5% credit. 
None of the 9 proponents have a Host employee as a principal. 
5 of 9 proponents are based in San Francisco County. 



s 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 






JULY 21, 1992 



AUG 28 1932 



SAN FKrt" 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 
MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

July 21, 1992 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

July 7, 1992 92-0208 3 

D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 3 

E. PENDING LEGISLATION: 

1. Resolution Opposing SB 226, 

As Amended 92-0209 3 

F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Clarify When a Business is Eligible 
for Registration under the Host 

MBE/WBE Sublease Plan 92-0210 4 

3. Adopt FY1992/93 Rates & Charges 92-0211 4 

4. Award Contract 3013 - Re-roof 

International Terminal & B/A "D" 92-0212 4 

5. Bid Call - Public Pay Telephone 

Agreement 92-0213 4 

6. Award P.S.C. - Implement Water 
Reclamation Project at Industrial 

Wastewater Treatment Plant 92-0214 4 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Mod. No. 5 - Agreement with 

Howard, Rice et al - $175,000 92-0215 

8. Amend Policy on Green Living 
Plants in Terminal Buildings 

9. Mod. to Exhibition Schedule 

10. Travel/Training 

H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

11. Master Plan Mitigation Measures 

I. NEW BUSINESS: 

12. Authorize Informational Meeting 
to Discuss Airport Master Plan 
Mitigation Measures 92-0219 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 

Potential Litigation 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 



92-0216 


5 


92-0217 


5 


92-0218 


5 



Minutes, July 21 , 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

July 21 , 1992 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
James K. Ho 

Absent: Marie K. Brooks 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0208 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes, July 21 , 1992, Page 3 



E. PENDING LEGISLATION: 

Item No. 1 was adopted unanimously. 
1 . Resolution Opposing SB 226, as Amended 
No. 92-0209 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos. 2 through 6 were adopted unanimously. 

2. Resolution Clarifying When a Business is Eligible for Registration 
Under the Host MBE/WBE Sublease Plan 

No. 92-0210 



Adoption of Fiscal Year 1992/93 Rates and Charges 

No. 92-0211 Resolution adopting terminal rental 

rates, landing fees and jet bridge use 
fees for fiscal year 1992/93. 



Award of Contract No. 3013 

Re-roof International Terminal and Boarding Area "D" 

No. 92-0212 Resolution awarding Contract 3013 to 

Western Roofing Services in the amount 
of $1 ,383,927.00. 



Authorization to Receive Bids: Public Pay Telephone Agreement 

No. 92-0213 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing staff 
to receive bids for the Public Pay 
Telephone Agreement. 



Minutes, July 21 , 1992, Page 4 



Award Professional Services Contract: Implementation of Hater 
Reclamation Project at Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant 

No. 92-0214 Resolution awarding P.S.A. to 

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 7 through 10 were adopted unanimously. 

7. Modification No. 5 of Agreement with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski , 
Canady, Robertson & Falk - $175,000.00 

No. 92-0215 Resolution approving Mod. No. 5 of 

agreement with the law firm of Howard 
Rice, et al to increase funding by 
$175,000.00; all other terms and 
conditions to remain unchanged. 



8. Amendment to Airport Policy on Green Living Plants in the Terminal 
Bui ldings 

No. 92-0216 Resolution to approve amendment of 

Resolution 79-0114 and endorse 
installation of two artificial 
Christmas trees in the International 
Terminal . 



Modification to Exhibition Schedule 

No. 92-0217 Modifications to previously approved 

Exhibition Schedule per Resolution No. 
91-0119 for Fall 1992 to Spring 1994. 



10. Travel /Training 
No. 92-0218 

* # * 
Minutes, July 21, 1992. Page 5 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was convened at 9:35 AM and closed at 10:18 AM, there 
being no further comments from the public. 

1 1 . Master Plan Mititgation Measures 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Item no. 12 was adopted unanimously. 

12. Resolution Authorizing an Informational Meeting to Discuss Airport 
Master Plan Mitigation Measures 

No. 92-0219 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The Commission may convene in closed session to discuss potential 
litigation in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(B)(1) 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM. 




(KJlMa_ 



iramatti 
lission Secretary 



Minutes, July 21, 1992, Page 6 



April 3, 1992 

Iris Dorau, Spokesperson for the 

Residents of Avalon Pines 

459 Almanor Avenue 

South San Franicsco, CA 94 080 



Mayor and City Council Members 

P.O. Box 711 

South San Francisco, California 94083 

Dear Mayor and City Council Members: 

This letter is written by and on behalf of the residents 
of Avalon Pines in the City of South San Francisco. 

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our 
concerns regarding the plan that was adopted for the 
implementation of the Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. 

We understand that the plan was adopted to insulate the 
homes that are effected by the aircraft noise from the San 
Francisco International Airport. We realize that aircraft 
traveling to and from runway 28 is the primary cause for the 
noise problem in the city of South San Francisco. Finally, we 
are aware that homes effected with the highest decibel level 
will receive first priority. 

Our concern is with the selection process. You have 
decided that the residential areas with the highest decibel 
level will receive first priority. This selection process does 
not take into account the age of the homes. Further, this 
selection process does not account for the fact that the 
residents who chose to live in close proximity to the airport 
took notice of the fact that there would be loud aircraft 
noise. 

Many Avalon Pines' residents have resided in the area for 
more than thirty years. Many Avalon Pines' homes are also over 
thirty years old. Thus, Avalon Pines' residents and their homes 
have been subjected to the San Francisco International Airport 
noise much longer than the residential areas that are receiving 
first priority under the Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. 
When some of the residents of Avalon Pines purchased their 
homes, thirty years ago, they were not put on the same type of 
"notice" as the residents that are receiving first priority for 
the Aircraft Noise Insulation Program today. 



Many of the residents of Avalon Pines reside in homes with 
single-pane windows. Over the years the windows have been 
rattled by the noise and vibration from the airplanes. The 
windows have been damaged and loosened from the frames to the 
point where they no longer provide any insulation. Thus, the 
energy bills continue to climb. 

Some of the very elderly residents of Avalon Pines may 
never live to see their homes benefit from the Aircraft Noise 
Insulation Program because it may be 10 to 20 years before the 
program reaches their area. While the residents of Avalon 
Pines wait for assistance, some have taped their window panes 
to the frames for fear that the windows panes may fall out. 
Others have had no choice but to replace the windows. These 
selected few did not and will not receive any credit for the 
replacement of their windows through the Aircraft Noise 
Insulation Program. 

As residents of Avalon Pines, we urge the board to address 
our concerns. We believe that an exception can be carved out 
of the general plan for "emergency" situations. The current 
plan fails to provide a "human" element and results in hard and 
fast rules. If this is a program designed truly to benefit the 
residents of the City of South San Francisco, individual 
concerns must be taken into consideration on a case by case 
basis where an "emergency" situation is involved. 

Please find the attached signatures of the residents of 
Avalon Pines. The signatures indicate that these residents 
support this letter written by and on behalf of the residents 
of Avalon Pines. 

Sincerely, 

Iris Dorau, Spokesperson for the 
Residents of Avalon Pines 



cc: Mayor, John Penna 

Vice Mayor, Roberta Teglia 
Councilman, Jack Drago 
Councilman, Gus Nicolopulos 
Councilman, Joe Fernekes 



My signature evidences my support for the letter of March 
19, 1992 urging the Mayor and Counsil Members of the City of 
South San Francisco to address the conerns of the residents of 
Avalon Pines. . ,. f~\ y ■ j-rz ,/-, 






10. 

11 



-L i'S/r /./ay e / ^k * t/ * f 2S-^&£\h\ftA>GK±Jhi& J5s£Srf 

1 3 dSj£2^3ll£L HAL* FZ &'rf U. cL,<^ 4b1.fi krfyui'KtH.-d v C 5 M kf j 
!0, 



18.' 
19 i 



r T 7 T ^Tir — T ■ t tC.-J.U-f 



2 *3±^^^j^^^iM y-\i k*j^: >../,;.. Qzirt ? 



J ■$**-** 

N _ll _ f ^ ^ SI Li ~\ 



28. XWU Cd^fe AWsfasiUp^ M. I*! 'III?' 



2 
3 
3 
32 



^. 



*tt^JZy/£U /9-^t&~ U &- SS9-S/JZ 
^=^C_, f Smfcs&'T&l tec-**?? 







>s 






43. j jig jgg /;,& kfcL</iM &ejl,c 7 c /vr//^/uog So'v-y^y 



_/- 







' 1W 



'. . ^ 



^vjk. &JUM ?** \Lfi&H*kU,&*' sftzss'j 

4 / • L '. 



- 54 j Q*£**^ !XujL 



55, 

56 






£. 




H?T CV 






58^ - : 



59 

6Q_i 





63^32^= naS%2 






m-^i <* i 









//a- 



rt. i 



~3 .3"«3o"-2.0/6 



3 



? 






16 .^-^r* 




*,* 




uL^L f^ [Lilted tt&f fl/rNLH, A^ iBhi 



Try? s^s-i <^ 



^v*' 









L« 













i7 



ft y£&*~^^ 
r i Mi ^0 ^^ 



Washburn, Briscoe 6c McCarthy 

a phot CSS'ONAL CORPORATION 

LAWYERS 

SS FRANCISCO STREET. SUITE 600 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133 

TELEPHONE: (AI5) 421-3200 

TELEFAX: (415) 42I-S044 



ONE CITY CENTRE 

770 L STREET. SUITE 990 

SACRAMENYO. CALIFORNIA 956ii 

TELEPHONE: (916) »«7-0700 

TELEFAX: (SI61 *A7-»78l 



July 20, 1992 



Via Hand Delivery 

Mr. Patrick Murphy, President 

and Members of the Airports Commission 
Airports Commission 
San Francisco City Hall, Room 282 
San Francisco, CA 



Re: Commission Action on Draft "San Francisco 

International Airport Master Plan Mitigation 
Program" of July 15, 1992 
Public Hearing: July 21, 1992 

Dear President Murphy 

and Members of the Airports Commission: 

This office represents The Koll Company, the developer 
of Koll Center Sierra Point, substantial acreage located east of 
U.S. Highway 101 in the Cities of South San Francisco and 
Brisbane. The purpose of this letter is to request that the 
Airports Commission adopt appropriate mitigation for certain 
environmental impacts identified in the Environmental Impact 
Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion at San Francisco 
International Airport. Koll has reviewed the Draft "San 
Francisco International Airport Master Plan Mitigation Program" 
dated July 15, 1992. For the reasons that follow, the mitigation 
measures set forth in that Mitigation Program as "measures 
suggested for inclusion in the Master Plan" are inadequate to 
mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. 

First, the Mitigation Program suggests the adoption of 
certain mitigation measures and rejects other measures without 
any supporting evidence, explanation or reason given at all for 
such categorization. There is no substantial evidence, nor the 
necessary findings, to justify the asserted adequacy of the 
suggested measures, or the inappropriateness of rejected ones. 
It is impossible for Koll and the public to determine why certain 
measures were deemed feasible and others were not. For example, 
the housing section of the Mitigation Program rejects as 
infeasible the development of residential housing east of U.S. 
Highway 101 without any supporting evidence given. (Page 31.) 
The Mitigation Program contains inadequate information upon which 



July 21, 1992 
Page 2 



the Airports Commission could ultimately adopt or reject certain 
mitigation measures. 

Moreover, the Mitigation Program never defines the 
"inappropriate" nature of some of the mitigation measures. Does 
"inappropriate" mean too costly? Disfavored? Not technically 
feasible? The document categorizes some measures as "infeasible 
or inappropriate." Does that mean that the Commission has 
categorized certain measures are feasible , but inappropriate? 
For example, the Mitigation Program rejects noise surcharges as 
"infeasible or inappropriate," although such surcharges have been 
put into effect at other airports in the country. (Page 15, J 
10.) An explanation of the categories termed "infeasible" and 
"inappropriate' is reguired. 

Second, the suggested mitigation measures set forth in 
the Mitigation Program, including measures addressing noise, 
housing, and transportation, will not adeguately mitigate the 
significant impacts to be expected from the Airport's expansion. 
(Koll's letter of May 20, 1992 to the San Francisco City Planning 
Commission, a copy of which is attached, discusses these expected 
impacts in detail.) For example, concerning housing impacts, 
although a significant impact on housing demand will result from 
the expansion, the Mitigation Program suggests only one 
mitigation measure for housing impacts — a clearance center for 
Airport employees. (Page 30.) While such a center may assist 
employees in locating existing housing stock, it does nothing to 
actually increase the supply to meet the housing demand that will 
be created by the new jobs at the airport. Similarly, concerning 
transportation impacts, the Mitigation Program rejects as 
infeasible the meritworthy suggestion from the public that 
traffic impacts be considered in conjunction with housing demand. 
(Page 28, f 10.) Moreover, although the Program suggests 
spending $250,000 to study the traffic problem, such a study does 
not and cannot replace the adoption of measures that would lessen 
the expected impact on traffic. 

Third, it is apparent from a review of the Mitigation 
Program that the Airports Commission has not seriously 
considered, and does not intend to consider, mitigation measures 
suggested by the public during the recent round of workshops and 
hearings. For example, all three mitigation measures suggested 
as feasible for noise impacts were already set forth in the EIR; 
the public's suggestions were either rejected as infeasible or 
recommended to be forwarded to another agency or entity. For 
noise impacts, all eighteen of the measures suggested for 
adoption originated from the EIR or from Airport staff. For 



July 21, 1992 
Page 3 



housing impacts, the sole measure suggested for adoption was 
proposed by Airport Staff. 

Koll requests that the Commission reconsider adopting 
some of the mitigation measures that are categorized by the 
Mitigation Program as infeasible. The Commission should put in 
place a mitigation program that will provide adequate mitigation 
for this project's expected significant impacts. The Draft 
Mitigation Program fails to do so and is, therefore, insufficient 
to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental 
Quality Act. 

Very truly yours, 

(Catherine £-. Cutler 

Attachment 

cc: Douglas A. Thomas, The Koll Company 
Ronald Rainey, Esq. 



Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy 

* • RCLSS'ONAl CORPORATION 

LAWYERS 

55 FRANCISCO STREET, SUITE 600 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA BAI33 

TELEPHONE: UlS) *2i-3200 
TELEFAX: <ai5) «2i-SOa« 



ONE Cirr CENTRE 

770 L STQCCT. SUITE SBO 

SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 856 

TELEPHONE (O16; *«?-07C>0 

TELEFAX (9'6 AA7-A76I 



L 



May 20, 1992 



Sidney Unobskey, President 
and Members of the City Planning Commission 
San Francisco City Planning Commission 
150 McAllister Street, 6th Floor, Room 600 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Re: Proposed Final EIR Certification for San Francisco 
International Airport Master Plan 
(Commission Agenda on May 21, 1992) 



Dear President Unobskey 

and Members of the City Planning Commission: 

This office represents The Koll Company, the developer of 
Koll Center Sierra Point, developer of substantial acreage located 
east of U.S. Highway 101 in the Cities of South San Francisco and 
Brisbane. The purpose of this letter is to explain our primary 
concerns regarding: (1) the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 
the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan dated July 1991 
(hereinafter, "Draft EIR"); and (2) the Draft Summary of Comments 
and Responses to the Environmental Impact Report dated May 7, 1992 
("C&R"). 

For the reasons that follow, we urge the City Planning 
Commission not to certify the Draft EIR as final at its hearing 
scheduled for May 21, 1992. Instead, as explained in detail below, 
we request that the Draft EIR be revised to include certain 
necessary mitigation measures, as well as substantial additional 
data and analyses. A new Draft EIR should then be recirculated for 
public comment. 

Request for Delay : Addressing an important procedural 
issue first, our opportunity to review the CtR has been limited 
unfairly by the Department of City Planning to an insufficient 
amount of time. The C&R is dated May 7, 1992, yet a final 
certification hearing on May 21, 1992 is scheduled. The CJ.R for 
expansion of San Francisco International Airport (the "Airport") 
exceeds 450 pages and addresses numerous important issues. We have 
not had adequate time to review the C&R thoroughly, let alone 
analyze all of the Responses in the C&R and provide the Commission 



an Francisco City Planning Commission 
ay 20, 1992 
age 2 



rith that analysis. In order that ve and others may have a 
sufficient opportunity to review and analyze the CtR in depth, we 
iave already requested by letter dated May 15, 1992 that the 
Commission delay the certification hearing by 60 days at a minimum. 

This requested delay is fully justified. The expansion 
?f the Airport is a significant project that will have a major 
impact on the entire Bay Area. From our initial brief review, the 
2&R appears to be wholly inadequate and does not conform to the 
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 
Therefore, the Draft EIR should not be certified as written on May 
21, 1992. Substantial revisions are called for, in particular to 
incorporate stronger measures to mitigate adverse noise, housing, 
and transportation impacts, among other mitigation measures and 
revisions. A certification hearing on May 21 would be premature. 

Consultation With Other Agencies Is Required : It is 
clear that there are major problems with the Draft EIR that the 
Commission must be prepared to remedy before certifying the EIR as 
final. The Commission is required under CEQA, Public Resources 
Code sections 21092.4 and 21153, to consult with other agencies 
regarding certain issues addressed in the EIR. For a project of 
this magnitude, this consultation requirement should not be taken 
lightly. It is apparent, however, from the lack of adequate 
mitigation measures set forth in the CfcR, that the required 
consultation cannot have taken place for this project. 

For example, Caltrans commented on the Draft EIR that 
" — project generated traffic should be mitigated so that LOS 
[Level of Service] standards on facilities identified in both San 
Mateo and San Francisco counties Congestion Management Plans are 
not adversely affected." (C&R.158.) The Airport's Response to this 
comment manifests a lack of consultation with Caltrans. The 
Response given to Caltrans' comment is inadequate, because no true 
mitigation measures to maintain Level Of Service standards are 
proposed for any of the expansion's adverse impacts on freeway 
congestion. 

The only traffic mitigation measures proposed are 
relatively minor improvements to existing local intersections and 
monitoring of traffic on El Camino Real, and at a few major 
intersections near the Airport. There is no true mitigation 
proposed for the expected increase in volume of traffic on the 
freeways due to the Airport expansion. Thus, as the Commission has 
not responded at all to Caltrans' concerns, the Commission cannot 
be said to have truly consulted with Caltrans to devise an 
effective solution to the traffic impacts. Other Responses in the 



•in Francisco City Planning Commission 
•iy 20, 1992 
ige 3 



iR illustrate this failure to consult with appropriate agencies in 
i strikingly similar fashion. 

Problems vith the Draft EIR and C&R : Our major concerns over 
'he Responses in the C&R stem from the lack of adequate mitigation 
easures set forth in the CtR, relating in particular to adverse 
oise, transportation and housing impacts. Because of the 
ignificance of the Airport expansion , our comments in some 
nstances restate comments of others on the Draft EIR, particularly 
here ve believe that the responses in the C&R to particular 
omments are inadequate. 

A. Noise Impacts 

Contrary to the assertions of the Draft EIR, it is not at 
ill clear that the Airport expansion will not result in increased 
loise. The Draft EIR expects a 26% increase in total annual 
lircraft operations (take-offs and landings) between 1990 and 2006. 
[Draft EIR, p. 24.) Although the Draft EIR expects that larger, 
juieter aircraft and higher passenger occupancy levels will not 
result in higher noise levels by 2006 (see Draft EIR, p. 452), this 
issertion is unsupported by evidence in the Draft EIR and is 
:learly conjecture. As stated in an article in the San Francisco 
Independent of August 27, 1991 entitled "Airport Growth Alarms 
citizens", the Airport Noise Committee of the San Francisco Board 
if Supervisors is concerned that the expansion will create more 
loise and that the difference in noise using newer, quieter 
lircraft may be barely perceptible. 

It is far from clear that total aircraft operations will 
Increase by only 26%. An increase of 26% seems too 6mall when 
:ompared to the expected 71% increase in annual passengers and the 
ixpected 55% increase in cargo and mail activity. (Draft EIR, p. 
14.) As a preliminary matter, the C&R should explain, in a 
:omprehensible fashion, the statistical and other empirical 
issumptions that have been made in anticipating larger, quieter 
lircraft and higher passenger occupancy levels. Absent a 
compelling case that more flights mean less noise, noise mitigation 
neasures should be required and should be monitored for 
effectiveness. What noise mitigation is proposed in the C&R is 
Inadequate to address the problem of increased noise, as explained 

MlOW. 

1. Noise Insulation Program : One mitigation measure 
Included in the C&R is the existing Noise Insulation Program, 
•towever, this program has been implemented too slowly to constitute 
in effective mitigation measure, and has been underfunded. With 
the increased revenues to the Airport expected from the expansion 



tan Francisco City Planning Commission 
fay 20, 1992 
,'age 4 



>lan, the Airport should pledge even greater resources towards this 
urogram for all impacted communities. 

The Airport, in conjunction with the FAA and surrounding 
cities, should continue to refine and improve the program by 
providing additional funding commensurate with the number of 
eligible homes and speeding up the snail's pace at which homes have 
seen insulated. We recommend establishment of mitigation measures 
in the Draft EIR that would: (1) consistent with a recently-adopted 
Airport Round Table policy, set a deadline of the year 2000 as the 
date by which all eligible homes will have been insulated; and (2) 
provide adequate annual funding to insulate all eligible homes 
during that period. 

2. Decrease in Noise-Impacted Areas : Federal and state 
laws require the Airport to reduce noise impacts over the long 
range, as projected in Table 52 of the Draft EIR (p. 34). It is 
clear from a comparison of Figures 20 and 32 of the Draft EIR that 
total land areas impacted by airport noise are expected to shrink 
substantially by 1996 if the underlying data are correct. For 
example, for the period 1990-2006, there is a projected decrease in 
noise at noise monitor 15 (located east of U.S. Highway 101 in 
South San Francisco) from a dB CNEL level of 62.2 to 55.4. (Draft 
EIR, Table 53.) The number of persons in residential areas that 
are exposed to aircraft noise is also expected to decrease from 
14,980 to 6,600 persons by 2006. (Draft EIR, Table 52.) Maps 
showing an even greater reduction of noise-impacted areas were 
provided for the No-Project Alternative for 1996 and 2006. (Draft 
EIR, Figures 34, 35.) 

Although we applaud these projected results, the results 
are based on various assumptions which may not occur without the 
adoption and continued monitoring of strong mitigation measures to 
ensure their occurrence. Therefore, to enforce this expected 
decrease in the number of persons and the total area exposed to 
aircraft noise, we recommend that strict mitigation measures be 
adopted to ensure that these results actually occur within the 
projected time frame. 

3. Sinale-Event Noise Mitigation : Even with an 
expected reduction of overall noise impacts as predicted by the 
Draft EIR, single-event noise will 6till present the problem to 
surrounding communities that it does today. The C&R concedes that 
the projected increase in aircraft activity is expected to cause a 
corresponding increase in frequency of single-event noise impacts. 
(C4R.228.) The Airport expansion provides a golden opportunity to 
address this troublesome issue; however, the C&R sets forth no 
specific mitigation measure addressing single-event noise. 



an Francisco City Planning Commission 
ay 20, 1992 
•age 5 



Although a considerable number of comments were received 
iddressing the single-event issue, the Responses in the C&R are 
sketchy at best and do not provide any solutions to the problem, 
because most single-events which disturb sleep patterns occur in 
Late evening hours, we suggest that mitigation measures be adopted 
addressing single-event noise. Such measures might include: (1) 
:he Airport should consider imposing new restrictions on hours for 
take-offs and landings; and (2) imposing special noise impact 
oitigation fees on late-night take-offs and landings (particularly 
for cargo planes) . Although these suggestions have been raised 
before in other forums, the Airport expansion is the ideal 
opportunity to reconsider such restrictions. 

B. Transportation Impacts 

As with noise impacts, the C&R does not provide adequate 
mitigation for adverse traffic impacts. For example, the expected 
impact on traffic on freeways surrounding the Airport will be very 
significant. The total daily traffic volume is expected to 
increase during the period from 1990 to 2006 from 110,700 vehicles 
per day to 168,500 per day. (Draft EIR, Summary, p. 4.) The Level 
of Service on southbound Highway 101 will decrease from Level C to 
Level E. (Draft EIR, p. 319.) The Level of Service on northbound 
Highway 101 will decrease from Level C to Level F. ( Id. ) The 
Level of Service on Interstate 380 will decrease from C to F. 

Yet the recommended transportation mitigation measures 
appear to be totally inadequate to cope with this increased volume 
of freeway traffic. The CtR is virtually devoid of any true 
mitigation for freeway congestion. For Highway 101, all that is 
proposed is a High Occupancy Vehicle Lane in each direction from 
San Jose to San Francisco and the installation of ramp meters and 
signage. (Draft EIR, p. 417.) This mitigation ignores the fact 
that 25% of the new employees are expected to reside in the City of 
San Francisco and will have to travel to the Airport from the 
north. (Draft EIR, p. 396.) There is also no indication that this 
limited mitigation will improve the expected decline in the Level 
of Service. Moreover, Caltrans is opposed to the conversion of an 
existing mixed flow lane into a High Occupancy Vehicle Lane, which 
conversion is not included in the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission's Master Plan. (C&R. 161-62. ) Samtrans also considers 
this proposed conversion to be an invalid mitigation measure. 
(C&R.162.) 

Although some mitigation measures for this expected 
increase in traffic congestion are proposed to be located on-site 
at the Airport (including a people-mover, Ground Transportation 



San Francisco City Planning Commission 
«ay 20, 1992 
Page 6 



Center, and future BART or CalTrain extensions into the Airport 
(see C&R. 320-23) ) , such on-site measures do not satisfactorily 
mitigate all traffic impacts from the Airport expansion. The 
proposed minor upgradings by Cal trans of adjacent state highways 
and the possible restriping of one lane of Highway 101 to a High 
Occupancy Vehicle Lane (see Draft EIR, pp. 412-13) do not appear to 
correct the primary Level Of Service problems that are expected on 
the major thoroughfares. 

Additionally, there may well be more adverse traffic 
impacts than are projected by the Draft EIR, because the Draft EIR 
does not appear to cover all impacted areas. The C&R admits that 
only segments of affected freeways were studied. (C&R. 123.) 
Because the Airport is and will be one of the largest employers 
located on Highway 101, a new, comprehensive, detailed analysis of 
the effects on, as well as necessary improvements to, Highway 101 
and all supporting freeways and bridges should be completed. The 
C&R's attempted correction of the Draft EIR's traffic study via an 
update of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis with data from only one 
missing freeway segment in Belmont is simply not a comprehensive 
method for analyzing and improving the Level of Service on this 
major access corridor. (See C&R. 123.) 

The traffic data also may not sufficiently account for 
increased traffic impacts stemming from the expected increase in 
indirect employment of 50% from the planned Airport expansion. 
(C&R. 120.) The Airport claims that "assumptions regarding 
developments in the vicinity of SFIA that might affect the traffic 
operations in the study area . . . were reviewed with respect to the 
project's potential impacts on study-area intersections. " However, 
it is unclear whether this review took into account the projected 
increase of 50% in indirect employment or projected increases in 
induced employment. Further explanation and analysis are necessary 
to ensure that all future traffic impacts from indirect employment 
have been accounted for in the Draft EIR. 

The Draft EIR's approach to the traffic problem, as 
illustrated by the C&R, does not place any of the costs of 
implementing required mitigation measures on the shoulders of the 
Airport. The pass-through of some of these costs to the Airport 
should be included as a mitigation measure. The Airport is in a 
unique position as a transportation agency to cooperate with other 
agencies and to participate in the planning of long-term solutions 
to the Bay Area's traffic congestion. The Airport should be able 
to fund some of those local solutions through increased revenues 
generated by the expansion. 



Sin Francisco City Planning Commission 
hiy 20, 1992 
Iige 7 



Because the Airport will benefit from the proposed 
icpansion, it is only fair that the Airport assume some financial 
oligation for mitigating some of the adverse traffic impacts 
ssulting from the expansion. If the Airport is currently limited 
n its ability to accommodate the impact on traffic, then we 
ecommend that either that limitation be lifted or the Airport 
xpansion be put on hold until such time as such additional 
egional transportation facilities (or appropriate alternatives) 
an be provided to maintain acceptable Levels of Service throughout 
he area. 

An additional mitigation that would lessen adverse 
mpacts on both traffic and noise would be a reduction in the 
iroposed increase in cargo aircraft. (Draft EIR, p. 24.) The need 
or additional cargo facilities at this particular Airport seems 
.mpractical, given both the high price of land in the area that can 
>e used for warehouse facilities for cargo traffic and additional 
loise impacts that could result from night take-offs to meet 
evening landing restrictions in foreign countries. 

It would appear that either Metropolitan Oakland 
[nternational Airport or other airports would be more appropriate 
Locations for such additional cargo facilities. The C6R concedes 
:hat the Airport's share of domestic air freight has decreased from 
>5% to 75% over the last ten years, although the overall regional 
aarket has grown by 37%. (C&R.35.) The Metropolitan 
transportation Commission forecasts that the Airport's percentage 
•hare of cargo activity, as compared to the share of Oakland 
[nternational, will continue to decrease significantly from 1990 to 
!010. Why should the Airport plan to accept more cargo flights 
fhen it can barely keep up with the projected passenger demand? We 
recommend that the final EIR include an alternative that would not 
include significant increases in cargo handling. 

C. Housing Impacts 

One of the Draft EIR's critical deficiencies is its lack 
)f mitigation for adverse housing impacts and impacts on the 
jobs/housing balance. The CtR inadeguately addresses the demand 
for housing that will be created by new employment at the Airport. 
According to the Draft EIR, direct airport employment is expected 
:o increase due to the expansion by about 9,000 jobs in the period 
from 1990 to 2006. (Draft EIR, Figure 19, p. 396.) Yet, as shown 
aelov, housing in the whole Bay Area as a region will be affected 
ay these new jobs, because 63% of these new employees will reside 
outside San Mateo County, in part due to lack of affordable 
lousing. Because the Draft EIR's analysis of housing impacts is 
Limited almost exclusively to San Mateo County, it fails to take 



<in Francisco City Planning Commission 
Iiy 20, 1992 
lige 8 



■\e necessary regional approach to the housing problem that will 
esult from Airport expansion. 

The total housing demand created by these 9,000 new jobs 
6 expected to be 6,850 total housing units by 2006. (See Draft 
IR, p. 398.) About 37.1% of the new Airport employees are 
xpected to reside in San Mateo County. f id, at p. 397.) The 
raft EIR asserts that 2,450 housing units are needed in San Mateo 
ounty for these new employees. f id. ) 

The housing demand figures used in the Draft EIR's 
na lysis are much too low for two reasons. First, the predicted 
lemand for 6850 housing units does not even take into account the 
tousing demand created by the expected increase in indirect and 
.nduced employment at the Airport. The number of indirect and 
.nduced jobs expected to be created from the Airport expansion is 
ibout 38,570 by the year 2006, over and above the 9,000 direct 
jobs. (C&R.358.) The C&R asserts that, because it is not possible 
:o determine the exact location of these indirect and induced jobs, 
it is not possible to determine the extent of housing impacts on 
San Mateo County. However, as the County will obviously be greatly 
affected if even some percentage of these new indirect and induced 
jobs are located within the County, the Draft EIR's analysis does 
not even scratch the surface in attempting to determine housing 
needs in the County. Second, the Draft EIR's housing needs 
analysis does not consider other increases in jobs in the Bay Area 
that may occur that are unrelated to the Airport. 

The Draft EIR tacitly concludes that there will be no 
housing problem because most of the new Airport employees will live 
outside the County. This conclusion is illogical. A problem will 
be created for the 37.1% of the new employees that are expected to 
live in San Mateo County. As reported in the Peninsula Times 
Tribune on August 28, 1991 in an article entitled "A Call for 
Balance," officials in San Mateo County have urged the Airport to 
provide housing in north county cities for the 9,000 new employees. 

A problem could also be created for the new indirect 
employees who might reside in the area. The C4R assumes, on page 
358, "that direct and induced jobs created as a result of 
implementation of the SFIA Master Plan would be located throughout 
the Bay Area and also outside the region." Is this assumption 
necessarily true? The Draft EIR could just as easily have assumed 
that many of these indirect jobs would be located in San Mateo or 
San Francisco counties if sufficient affordable housing was made 
available nearby for the employees. If those indirect jobs were 
located in these two counties, then the housing problem could be 
exacerbated even more. 



>an Francisco City Planning Commission 
lay 20, 1992 
'age 9 



The Draft EIR fails to consider housing problems 
predicted for the Bay Area as a region. It relies on projections 
by the Association of Bay Area Governments of the potential for new 
housing units that will exist in 2006 to support its assertion that 
there will be no adverse housing impacts from the expansion. Such 
reliance is misplaced, however, as illustrated by data from two 
affected counties where housing is predicted to be a problem. 
(Draft EIR, pp. 395, 399, note 5.) The data indicates that the Bay 
Area as a region is having difficulty meeting its housing needs. 

For example, in recent years, San Mateo County has not 
been producing housing units commensurate with its projected 
housing need. According to a study by ABAG of January 1989 
entitled "Housing Needs Projections," the production of housing 
units in San Mateo County from 1980 to 1988 was 16,628 units. The 
projected need during this period was 23,499 units. There was, 
therefore, a large shortfall in housing units. (ABAG Study, p. 14.) 

As another example, there will likely be a need in San 
Francisco County for more housing to accommodate the new Airport 
employees. About 25% of the new Airport employees are expected to 
live in the City of San Francisco. (Draft EIR, p. 396.) A recent 
report by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association 
(SPUR) , entitled "Plain Talk About the Housing Crises in San 
Francisco" dated May, 1992, states clearly: "There is a housing 
crisis in San Francisco." Although the report cites ABAG's 
estimate of the City's housing need to be 3584 units a year, 
because only 124 units were produced annually during 1980-89, 
there was a large shortfall. (SPUR Report, p. 2.) In addition, 
the report expects that there will be almost 5000 jobs created 
annually in San Francisco between the present and the year 2000. 
( Id. ) The report calculates that only 10% of the current City 
population can afford to buy a median-priced single-family house. 
( Id. at p. 1.) These employment and housing demand figures are 
staggering, considering there is very little housing currently 
being built in San Francisco. 

Therefore, because the City of San Francisco clearly has 
a housing problem similar to that of San Mateo County, it provides 
a clear example that the Draft EIR should not attempt to shift the 
housing responsibility from San Mateo County to other counties as 
a solution to the housing problem created by the expansion. 

Problems could also arise due to a lack of affordable 
housing for the new employees. The C&R admits that "new SFIA 
employees would create additional demands on housing supply, 
possibly resulting in an increase in the area's housing prices." 



an Francisco City Planning Commission 
ay 20, 1992 
age 10 



C&R. 363.) Exacerbating this potential problem, it appears that 
any of the projected 9,000 new jobs at the Airport will be low- 
ncome or moderate-income jobs. About 1200 of the new jobs to be 
reated are related to freight or ground transportation (see Draft 
;IR, pp. 395-97), which have traditionally not been high-income 
obs. As ABAC commented in the C&R, "Decision makers need to know 
he projected income of these employees and how housing that is 
iffordable to them will be provided. Most airport employees cannot 
if ford to live in San Mateo County. " (C&R, p. 362.) 

It is well accepted that there is a demonstrated need in 
San Mateo County for low, and moderate-income housing. As one 
:ommenter stated, "the housing costs in [San Mateo County] are very 
ligh." (C&R. 364.) There are no data provided in the Draft EIR on 
the current cost of housing in the County or the expected income 
levels of the 9,000 new employees. There are, therefore, no data 
Df any kind provided in the Draft EIR relating to whether housing 
in the County will be affordable for these new moderate-income 
employees. 

Therefore, there has been no true analysis made at all as 
to whether affordable units will be available for the 37.1% of the 
new employees who are expected to reside in the County, much less 
the additional indirect employees who might reside in the County. 
The C&R admits that no af fordability analysis has been prepared. 
(C&R. 363.) At the same time, the Draft EIR concedes that the 
presence of the new employees who do live in the County will strain 
already-high housing prices in the County. 

The C&R concedes that "[t]he additional demand for 
housing resulting from the project could potentially have negative 
socio-economic impacts directly related to housing af fordability." 
(C&R. 363.) The C&R further admits that no mitigation measures have 
been taken relating to the af fordability of housing in the County. 
It is imperative that sufficient housing mitigation measures be 
taken to correct the anticipated problems. As required by the CEQA 
Guidelines, section 15131(c), public agencies must consider 
economic, social, and particularly housing factors in deciding 
whether changes in a project are feasible. 

We also strongly disagree with the Draft EIR's assertions 
that the Airport expansion will ameliorate the current jobs/housing 
imbalance in the area. (C&R. 361.) The C&R asserts, without true 
supporting data, on page 360 that: "By creating more jobs in San 
Mateo County, implementation of the proposed SFIA Master Plan would 
likely create a more balanced situation between jobs and housing in 
the County." If San Mateo County currently has a greater ratio of 
housing to jobs than it requires, then how can the fact that over 



,an Francisco City Planning Commission 
lay 20, 1992 
:age 11 



2% of current Airport employees reside outside the County be 
xplained? We believe that the lack of affordability of housing in 
he County is a primary suspect. Because the jobs/housing ratio 
ited by the C&R on page 361 does not take into account the 
ffordability of housing units in the County compared to the new 
mployees' income levels, that ratio is largely useless. 

The C&R's analysis entitled "Housing Impacts and 
ignificance Criteria" on pages 354-55 is suspect. This analysis 
f housing demand compared to jobs is illogical. The lack of 
ffordable housing in San Mateo County is a significant problem, as 
iscussed above. Comparing the project's share of the local labor 
orce to the proportion of total local housing units used by new 
mployees is an invalid comparison because it does not take into 
ccount the question of affordability. The analysis attempts to 
lefine away the housing problem, while at the same time conceding 
.hat there is a jobs/housing imbalance. 

Urban planners sometimes measure housing demand by 
>alancing the number of jobs against the total Bay Area housing 
itock, such as was done in the last paragraph on page 359 of the 
:&R. However, the real impact of housing demand in this case 
ihould be measured against the housing stock in the area of the 
>roject (i.e., San Mateo and San Francisco counties), because 
lousing demand affects local prices and affordability. 

The Responses assert that no mitigation is necessary for 
:he change in the jobs/housing balance in San Mateo County because 
in imbalance will be corrected. (C&R. 361.) The measurement of the 
jobs/housing balance in terms of the entire County is suspect here, 
oecause northern San Mateo County may well be considered a 
different housing market than the southern part of the County. 
This factor should also be taken into consideration when 
calculating effects on the jobs/housing balance. 

The C&R responses on pages C&R. 354-55 were included 
because the Draft EIR had failed to take into account housing 
impacts. However, the Responses assert that there will be no 
significant impacts on housing because the percentage of San Mateo 
County housing units utilized by Airport employees will remain 
stable at approximately half of the percentage of San Mateo County 
jobs located at the Airport. (C&R. 355.) This ratio simply cannot 
be used as a measure for the potential significance of housing 
impacts. The ratio is totally irrelevant to the question of 
whether housing in the County will be affected by the Airport 
expansion. The Response measures apples and oranges. 



an Francisco City Planning Commission 
ay 20, 1992 
age 12 



To the contrary, the C&R makes plain that the expansion's 
ffect on housing will be significant. Since this is so, the Draft 
IR should be recirculated for public comment. 

Moreover, as the significant adverse impacts on housing 
'ere not considered a factor in the Draft EIR's traffic analysis, 
hould not the traffic analysis also be reanalyzed and recirculated 
o account for these impacts? The C&R admits that the lack of 
iffordable housing in San Mateo County will contribute to adverse 
.raffic impacts. The C&R concedes that many of the new employees 
'may choose to live in outlying parts of the region or communities 
mtside of the Bay Area. If this were to occur, the extended 
:ommuting distance traveled by these individuals would result in 
idditional physical impacts." (C&R. 363.) The EIR admits that it 
loes not have adequate data to analyze these impacts. 

The Airport cannot have it both ways. If there is a 
lousing problem in the area, then additional traffic problems from 
:he Airport expansion will occur due to the expected extended 
commuting. Cumulative impacts are likely to occur. Additional 
analysis and mitigation are, therefore, required. The Draft EIR as 
■rritten should not be certified, as it does not adequately analyze 
snd mitigate suspected housing and traffic impacts. 

The Airport also cannot have it both ways by creating a 
dousing problem by expanding the Airport and, at the same time, by 
engaging in unacceptable practices over the past several years to 
attempt to prohibit housing development from occurring on sites 
that are perfectly compatible with housing development under 
federal, state and local noise standards. 

Examples include: 

* Shearwater 

In 1986, the Airport opposed housing near the 
Airport when it challenged in court an EIR for a housing 
project in South San Francisco called Shearwater, 
effectively killing the project. 

* Sierra Point 

In 1991, the Airport entered into an Agreement with 
the City of South San Francisco to provide an additional 
$10 million to that city for much-needed noise insulation 
funds (see section 1, above, on the inadequacy of the 
insulation program), in exchange for the city's 



Sin Francisco City Planning Commission 
hy 20, 1992 
Fige 13 



prohibition of residential development on lands east of 
U.S. Highway 101. (This prohibition also included the 
Shearwater 6ite.) 

The true nature of the Airport's $10 million Agreement 
nth South San Francisco is mischaracterized in the CAR, which 
tidares that "The agreement does not prohibit housing east of US 
:)1." (C&R. 367.) Under the terms of the Agreement, the Airport 
lis agreed to give $10 million to South San Francisco if it 
rohibits the area from being developed for residential use. If 
outh San Francisco were to allow housing in that area, all funding 
13 the city from the Airport under the Agreement would cease. 
'lerefore, to state that the Agreement does not prohibit housing is 
o mischaracterize its nature. (Although the C&R asserts that 

ierra Point Associates' comments incorrectly characterized the 
ijreement, it is the C&R itself which misstates the Agreement's 

rue goals, which can only be interpreted to be the prohibition of 
busing. ) 

The C&R also states, incorrectly, that South San 
rancisco is free under the Agreement to "exercise its discretion" 
n taking the land use actions necessary to obtain the $10 million 
rom the Airport, thus implying that the Airport is not interfering 
n the city's planning process. (C&R. 367.) This cannot be true — 
hy would the Airport have offered the city $10 million simply to 
xercise its discretion? Further, the city's receipt of the money 
s contingent upon the passage of a General Plan amendment that 
rohibits housing in a manner consistent with the Airport's wishes, 
f the development of housing east of Highway 101 were purely a 
ocal decision, as the C&R implies, the Airport would not be 
nvolved at all in opposing that housing and offering $10 million 
o South San Francisco to prohibit that housing. 

The Agreement could result in the loss of at least 600 
omes that are planned for construction in the affected area, at 
east 90 of which are reserved for low and moderate-income units. 
Updated Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan, 
II, Fig. 20, p. 39, Sites 19 and 23, Columns 6, 7, and 8.) 
ecause the land where this proposed housing would be built is 
ithin the acceptable dB CNEL contour range established by the 
irport Land Use Committee in the Airport Land Use Plan (see Draft 
IR, Figure 20), the Airport's desire to prohibit housing in that 
rea is groundless. Instead of providing mitigation for noise 
mpacts, this Agreement will only exacerbate adverse housing 
mpacts that are likely to result from the Airport's expansion. 



an Francisco City Planning Commission 
ay 20, 1992 
age 14 



The Response states that the Airport opposed the 
hearwater project and entered into the Agreement to prohibit 
lousing at Sierra Point because the projects' development would 
xeate housing that would be impacted by aircraft overflights. 
C&R.368.) Yet, the units proposed for Shearwater and Sierra Point 
rould not create any new noise problems for the Airport. The sites 
ire compatible for residential housing for three reasons. 

First, the proposed development at Shearwater and Sierra 
'oint i6 targeted for sites that are completely compatible, under 
federal, state, and local noise standards, for residential 
levelopment. These lands are located within the 65 or lower CNEL 
:ontour range. Under federal, state and local law, lands located 
rithin this CNEL range are compatible for residential use. (See, 
i.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 21, sections 5001(1), 
>012, and 5014.) Based upon the data in the C&R showing the 
expected departure routes and expected noise levels at these sites 
lue to the Airport's expansion, housing is clearly a compatible use 
>f the properties. Second, the properties will become even more 
suitable as sites for housing because the total land area impacted 
ay airport noise shrinks substantially by 1996, as the Draft EIR 
predicts. (Draft EIR, Figures 20, 32.) Third, the Airport has 
listorically given its blessing to the development of housing in 
noise contour areas of 65 CNEL or less. In the Final Technical 
Report of the Joint Action Plan of 1980, the Airport endorsed the 
prohibition of new housing in the 70-75 CNEL range, the requirement 
of insulation within the 65-70 CNEL range, and the requirement of 
acoustical studies within the 60+ CNEL range. New housing in areas 
below 70 CNEL was allowed. Therefore, the Airport's argument that 
the sites are incompatible for residential use is, put simply, 
wrong. 

In sum, the Airport proposes noise insulation with an 
avigation easement as a sufficient mitigation in the EIR for the 
Airport's expansion. Yet at the same time, the Airport has been 
taking steps to prohibit housing in areas where insulation could 
clearly solve noise impacts, if any actually existed, by claiming 
that noise insulation will not be sufficient. The Airport cannot 
have it both ways. Such inconsistency makes no sense. 

The housing problem arising from the Airport expansion 
can be solved, in part by cooperation between public agencies and 
private developers. Several sites exist within the vicinity of the 
Airport that could provide additional housing for various income 
segments of the community. Potential housing sites such as Sierra 
Point and the Shearwater site in South San Francisco provide good 
examples of properties that should be fully endorsed by the Airport 
as appropriate locations for housing for new Airport employees. 
Noise easements, noise attenuation, and disclosure statements on 



;an Francisco City Planning Commission 
lay 20, 1992 
age 15 



oise for new residential development can be imposed at these 
ites. Recently, a successful Memorandum of Understanding was 
ntered into between the City of San Leandro, the City of Oakland, 
nd Citation Homes Central that contained all of these practical 
oise mitigation measures. The installation of appropriate noise 
itigation at these sites to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB 
NEL could also be required as a condition of development. 

Housing at the Shearwater and Sierra Point sites would 
onstitute "in-fill" of an urbanized area and, as such, would be 
ound public policy. According to a report by the Greenbelt 
lliance of December 1983, by adopting a new course based on 
ompact city-centered development policies, the Bay Area can meet 
ts housing needs. 1 The report concludes that there is a need for 
lore housing close to employment. 2 The Bay Vision 20/20 Commission 
lade similar findings in 1991. According to the Commission's 
eport, urban growth should be managed so that new development 
akes place wherever possible within existing urbanized areas. 3 
or the reasons set forth above, the Airport should not attempt to 
irohibit housing at the Sierra Point site. 

In short, due to the significant housing impacts that can 
>e expected from the Airport expansion, adequate housing mitigation 
neasures must be incorporated into the EIR before it is certified 
is final. Revision and recirculation of the EIR is mandated to 
romply with CEQA. 

4 . Other Issues : 

a. Lack of Good Faith, Reasoned Analysis : The 
:&R, at page 366, misstates the comments of Sierra Point Associates 
rwo regarding the Draft EIR. The Response therefore violates the 
requirement in section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines that 
"[t]here must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response" to 
comments on a draft EIR. 

b. Inadequate Analysis of Project Alternatives: 
It is unclear whether the thorough analysis required by CEQA 

of project alternatives involving distribution of aircraft activity 



'Room Enough: Housing and Open Space in the Bay Area: The 

Report of the Housing/Greenbelt Program of People for Open Space, 
Greenbelt Alliance (December 1983), p. 5. 

'Id., at p. 19. 

J Bay Vision 20/20: The Commission Report (May 1991), p. 29. 



an Francisco City Planning Commission 
;ay 20, 1992 
age 16 



o other Bay Area airports has been done in this case. The Draft 
IR admits that redistribution of aviation demand to other airports 
s recommended by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 
altrans, FAA, and other Bay Area airports. (Draft EIR, p. 468.) 
he Draft EIR also notes that, in 1987, the United States 
epartment of Transportation, the FAA, and the San Francisco Bay 
rea Task Force Capacity Study of the Airport recommended "the 
istribution of traffic more evenly among the three Bay Area 
irports." (Draft EIR, p. 70.) Adjacent cities such as South San 
fancisco have similar policy statements in the Noise Elements of 
heir General Plans. 

An editorial in the San Francisco Examiner on September 
i, 1991 noted, 

"[the Draft EIR treated] the expansion in isolation, 
oblivious to vhat might be going on nearby (e.g. a 
possible baseball stadium across the freeway) .. .The 
proposal for greatly increased airline operations calls 
out for a regional approach. Doesn't it make sense to 
provide for more of the additional services east of the 
Bay, saving thousands of travelers from having to make 
longer trips on clogged bridges and freeways?..." 

The Draft EIR asserts that it rejected the alternative of 
redistributing potential aircraft activity to other airports 
Because "it would not meet the sponsor's objective to accommodate 
the demand from forecast growth at SFIA." (Draft EIR, p. 475.) 
fet these forecast figures may be incorrect. It seems illogical 
that the Draft EIR forecasts that the Airport will still have 
between 63-70% of the Bay Area's passengers in 2006, given the 
adverse impacts that will be created and the continuing trend in 
the Bay Area of population growth in outlying areas. A more 
thorough analysis must be undertaken, as it is critical to proper 
decision-making as to the degree of expansion needed at this 
particular airport. 

The planned expansion also appears to be inconsistent 
with regional transportation plans for the Bay Area. The CiR 
states: "It is acknowledged that the SFIA Master Plan would be 
inconsistent with both MTC's 1980-recommended policy limit and with 
MTC's subsequently revised regional market share recommendations." 
(C4R.14.) 

Does the planned expansion at this particular location 
make sense in terms of regional planning for the entire Bay Area? 
The C&R notes that, "... as suggested by comment er s , it is 
reasonable to assume that the lack of capacity (or "bottlenecks") 



;an Francisco City Planning Commission 
lay 20, 1992 
Page 17 



Ln any of a number of locations or functional areas could constrain 
future SF1A passenger volumes, cargo activities, or other 
operations." (C&R.15.) The C&R concedes that, "If the Master Plan 
/ere to be implemented, the effective result could be an overbuilt 
lirport." (C&R. 33.) If this is true, the Airport should revise 
;he Master Plan to be consistent with regional policies and to 
ivoid overbuilding. A full-bore alternatives analysis that is 
consistent with other regional transportation plans must be 
Implemented before the Draft EIR is certified. 

c. Inadequate Analysis of Cumulative Impacts : 
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more separate 
impacts which, when considered together, are considerable, or which 
compound or increase other environmental impacts. (CEQA 
Guidelines, section 15355.) CEQA requires that such cumulative 
impacts be analyzed. As described above, the Draft EIR may not 
have adequately considered (1) the cumulative impacts of housing 
demand on traffic impacts, and vice versa, or (2) other cumulative 
impacts. Although the Draft EIR's Mitigation Measures (see Section 
V) do discuss some cumulative -impact mitigation measures, the EIR 
does not separately analyze all of the cumulative impacts that can 
be expected from the expansion, as required. Because this analysis 
has not been done, it is impossible to know whether the Airport 
will be taking on the responsibility of mitigating its fair share 
of any cumulative impacts from this project. 

Conclusion : In conclusion, it is clear that the Draft 
EIR and C&R are deficient in several respects. There are 
insufficient data to support the EIR's assertions, many of which 
are suspect. For example, noise, traffic, and housing mitigation 
measures are called for to mitigate adverse impacts of the Airport 
expansion. Before specific measures are proposed, however, a 
thorough analysis of the impacts must be undertaken. 

Therefore, we request that the Draft EIR not be certified 
as final, that the required additional studies and analyses be 





an Francisco City Planning Commission 
ay 20, 1992 
age 18 



ndertaken, that appropriate mitigation measures then be adopted, 
nd that a new Draft EIR be circulated for public comment. 

Very^ truly yours , 



/ John Briscoe 



c: Mayor Frank Jordan, City of San Francisco 

Kevin Shelley, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Senator Quentin Kopp 

Assemblywoman Jackie Speier 

William Schumacher, President, San Mateo County Board of 

Supervisors 
Mayor Brad Kervin, City of Brisbane 
Mayor John Penna, City of South San Francisco 
Douglas Thomas, The Koll Company 



y 



4<; 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



ia 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SEP 23 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




UGUST 11, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATT1SON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 

MARIE K. BROOKS 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










August 11 , 1992 
Special Meeting 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 







Regular meeting of 

July 21 , 1992 92-0221 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



POLICY: 

Implement Water Reclamation 

Project - Policy to Promote Use 

of Reclaimed Water 92-0222 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Host Food & Beverage Lease: Request 

Approval of Facility Package No. 

4 Sublease 92-0223 

Exercise Two-Year Option for North 
Terminal Gate 64 Newsstand Lease 92-0224 

Award Contract 2389 - Interna' 1 
Terminal Communications Center 
Improvement 92-0225 



5 

5 

6-7 



Hold Harmless Agreement - Contract 

101 1C - Oliver De Silva, Inc. 92-0226 7-8 

Authorization to re-Bid Lingerie 

and Haberdashery Shop 92-0227 8-9 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. A. I. P. Project No. 3-06-0221-14 

- Project Application 92-0228 9-10 

8. South Terminal Cigarette Vending 

Lease - Excercise First Option 92-0229 10 

9. Declaration of Emergency - Contract 

3162 - Emergency Electrical Repairs 

- South Oxidation Pond 92-0230 10 

10. Amend Airport Conflict of Interest 

Code Designated Employee List 92-0232 10-11 

11. Declaration of Emergency - Contract 

3163 - Emergency Blast Fence Repair 

- Boarding Area F 92-0231 10 

12. Travel /Training - FY 1992-93 92-0233 11 

13. Ratifying Personnel Actions 92-0234 11 



NEW BUSINESS: 

Informational Meeting - 

September 2, 1992 ''- 12 

CORRESPONDENCE: 12 



CLOSED SESSION: 

Settlement - Marquez 
ADJOURNMENT: 

Minutes, August 11. 1992. Page 2 



92-0235 12 
12 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

August 11, 1992 
Special Meeting 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:03 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present: 

Absent: 



J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
Marie K. Brooks 

Patrick A. Murphy, President 
James K. Ho 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of July 21, 1992 were adopted by order 
of the Commission Vice President. 

No. 92-0221 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti . 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0220 regarding the authorization of 
settlement of authority for bankruptcy 
litigation with Martin R. Shugrue, 
Jr., Trustee, at the closed session of 
July 21 , 1992. 



Minutes, August 11. 1992, Page 3 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



POLICY: 

Item No. 1 was adopted unanimously. 

1 . Implementation of Water Reclamation Project 
Policy to Promote Use of Reclaimed Water 

No. 92-0222 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, reminded the Commission that the 
Airport has been engaged in discussions with the Water Board 
concerning improvements to the Airport's water discharge system. One 
of the projects agreed upon was a water reclamation project. Part of 
that agreement includes the adoption of an Airports Commission policy 
which is before the Commission today. This statement will be 
transmitted to the Water Board for review by the Executive Officer 
for consistency with the overall program. This is part of the 
earlier settlement that was negotiated. 

Commissioner Brooks noted item no. 4 under "Policy and Plan for the 
Long Term" and asked what the Airport's chances are for liability. 

Mr. Earnie Eavis, Assistant Deputy Director, Facilities Operations 
and Maintenance, responded that staff is taking a look at using 
reclaimed water for toilets and possibly watering plants away from 
public areas, or for uses that would not involve public contact. 

Commissioner Brooks assumed that there would then be no liability. 

Mr. Eavis responded that there would not. He said that one of the 
reasons for this program is to determine how safe the water actually 
is. He said that the water will be tested in a very small area. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 
Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 4 



Item nos. 2 through 4 were adopted unanimously. 

2. Host Food and Beverage Lease 

Request for Approval of Facility Package No. 4 Sublease 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance said 
that this is the fourth of eight leases under the Host sublease plan 
and the first under Phase II of that plan. The second of Phase II 
will be presented to the Commission in a couple of meetings. 

Ms. Gittens said that she was proud to announce that selected for the 
Commission's approval is KASS Management Systems. They will run the 
largest of the facilities to be subleased ... the combination of The 
Hangar restaurant in the South Terminal, Boarding Area 'C, and the 
employee cafeteria in the South Terminal. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that there were nine applicants for these 
leases and asked if the number was lower because they were difficult 
undertakings and the qualifications standards were more stringent. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that was a safe assumption. An employee 
cafeteria is a different kind of facility and was attractive to a 
narrower band of applicants. She noted that there were 28 applicants 
on the next lease so it's not that interest is waning. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if it was because it wasn't as attractive 
or because it was more specialized. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it was more difficult and more specialized. 

Commissioner Mattison assumed that by volume it still offers plenty 
of profit opportunity. 

Ms. Gittens agreed. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that KASS Management appeared to be a 
well qualified applicant and did not see any need for reservations. 



Exercise of Two-Year Option for Lease of North Terminal Gate 64 
Newsstand 

No. 92-0224 Resolution exercising two-year option 

with SFO News/Western Motives for the 
North Terminal Gate 64 Newsstand lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is a minority/female-owned business. Staff 
has been very pleased with our relationship and the service that has 
been provided. 

Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 5 



Award of Contract No. 2389 

International Terminal Communications Center Improvement 

No. 92-0225 Resolution awarding Contract No. 2389, 

International Terminal Communications 
Center Improvement, to Coastal 
Construction P.M., Inc. in the amount 
of $255,313.24. 

Mr. Turpen said that this project will upgrade certain communications 
equipment in the Airport's Command Post Communications Center in the 
North Connector. A protest was received, however the City Attorney 
has determined that the Commission can award to the low bidder. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if the protest was based on a bid 
technicality or the LBE/MBE status calculation. 

Ms. Mara Rosales, Airports General Counsel responded that it was her 
understanding that it was not an MBE/WBE issue, but a bid contract 
issue. 

Mr. Eavis responded that the low bidder originally said they were 
going to install a different type of cabinetry than was in the 
specifications. The second low bidder protested that. The City 
Attorney opined that the contract could be awarded because the 
specifications stipulate "or equal." Since that time the low bidder 
has stated that they will install the specified cabinetry rather than 
take the chance that their original cabinetry would not be approved. 

Commissioner Brooks asked about the additional $15,000. 

Mr. Eavis responded that that money probably will never be spent. It 
is there in the event that we find we need modifications, i.e. piping 
that wasn't supposed to be there, etc. 

Mr. Turpen added that it's a practice that has evolved over the years 
to allow staff to make certain minor changes without stopping the 
project to seek Commission approval. Stopping the project could 
result in significantly greater costs. This is simply a contingency 
backup to cover unanticipated incidentals. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that this is really a case in which the 
LBE/MBE preference doesn't make any difference. He asked if WBE was 
a preference in this sort of bid. 

Ms. Rosales responded that while in this case it is a local business 
who is minority male, it could be female. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre noted that the maximum preference is 10 
percent. 

Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 6 



Ms. Rosales said that that was correct. If a bidder is a minority/ 
woman/local business the total preference would still be 10 percent, 
not 15 percent. 



Item No. 5 was adopted unanimously as amended. 

Hold Harmless Agreement - Contract 101 1C 
01 i ver De Si Iva, Inc. 

No. 92-0226 Resolution authorizing staff to seek 

approval from the Board of Supervisors 
for the Airport to enter into a hold 
harmless agreement with Oliver De 
Silva, Inc., for the excavation, 
on-site transportation and storage of 
contaminated soils and groundwater. 

Mr. Eavis explained that the Airport has a contract to work, on Taxiway 
C by the Coast Guard area. The contractor discovered contaminated 
soil. The soil and groundwater were tested and while small amounts 
of contamination were found, it was high enough that action had to be 
taken. A consultant was hired to put together a plan on how to take 
care of the contamination. The contractor now wants to be indemnified 
for any cost that might result because of the contamination that 
exceeds their $5-mi 1 1 ion insurance policy for liability. This action 
will indemnify them beyond that $5-mi 1 1 ion . 

Mr. Eavis said that he has discussed this with the City Attorney's 
Office and they think that this is the best way to go. If the 
contract is re-bid the Airport would have to give the contractor the 
profit he would have made on the remaining portion of the contract. 
Since over $4-mi 1 1 ion is left in the contract this seems to be the 
most economical way to proceed. 

Commissioner Mattison asked Mr. Eavis if he had a fairly good 
economic assessment of the liability at this point. 

Mr. Eavis responded that the contamination is in the groundwater. To 
put it in perspective, the groundwater contamination is approximately 
20 parts per million. The asphalt the contractor is working with is 
1,500 parts per million. The chance of any health hazzards actually 
caused by this groundwater is very minute in comparison to their 
day-to-day practice in how they make a living. It is a very low 
level of contamination but high enough to be concerned about. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that this is primarily focused on the 
liability that arises purely from proper contact with the job itself, 
negl igence excluded. 

Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 7 



Mr. Eavis said that the contractor is still responsible for any 
negligent actions on their part in anything that would be part of the 
regular job. The contractor would be responsible if he did a shoody 
job of putting pipes together. This is just for contact with 
contaminated substances. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if it was clear in our resolution that this 
is above the $5-mi 1 1 ion policy ... that the $5-mi 1 1 ion in insurance 
comes first. 

Mr. Eavis said that the Airport has an agreement with them to take 
out that $5-mi 1 1 ion insurance policy. The contract has been modified 
to require them to have the $5-mi 1 1 ion before any of this takes place. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if it is in writing so that it is 
understood by the insurance company that they are responsible before 
our hold harmless kicks in. 

Commissioner Mattison said that that was a good point. The Commission 
resolution should be amended to reflect that the front line coverage 
is the $5-mi 1 1 ion . 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission can vote on this item as amended 
and the resolution can then be amended to appropriately reflect the 
intent of the Commission. 



Item no. 6 was adopted unanimously. 

6. Authorization to Re-Bid Lingerie and Habadashery Shop 

No. 92-0227 

Mr. Turpen explained that no bids were received for this lease. In 
asking questions a couple of problems became clear ... the minimum 
cost for improvement and the percentage. Location was also expressed 
as a concern. If the Commission elects to move ahead with the Master 
Plan that area of the North Terminal will become the key access to 
the International facility, making it dramatically different than it 
is today. Because of this, staff is agreeing with some of the 
comments received from prospective bidders and recommending a shorter 
term to coincide more with the Airports timing for the development of 
the International Terminal. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre noted that staffs recommendation with regard 
to inventory should be comparable to Union Square's, but thought it 
should be reduced to The Rack's. 

Mr. Turpen asked Ms. Gittens if, after talking with prospective 
bidders, there might be a better bidding environment with these 
changes. 

Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 8 



Ms. Gittens responded that she thought there would be. The biggest 
complaint was on the percentage. Given the location, a lower 
percentage was needed to make a profit. She was not promising a 
plethora of bids. Only one bid was submitted the first time. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if the lessee currently in that space is 
keeping it stocked and continuing to make an income. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff spoke to the lessee who was 
concerned that she be able to stock through Christmas. If not, her 
supplies would have to start dwindling. She said that given the 
length of time it is likely to take us to bid this the lessee was 
assured that she would be in the space long enough so that she could 
keep it stocked. 

Mr. Turpen said that if it doesn't go this time staff will return 
with a new idea. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 7 through 13 were adopted unanimously. 

7. Airport Improvement Program Project No. 3-06-0221-14 
Project Appl ication 

No. 92-0228 Resolution requesting the Mayor to 

recommend to the Board of Supervisors 
a resolution granting the Airport 
Commission authorization to execute 
and file a Project Application with 
the Federal Aviation Administration 
(F.A.A.) for Federal assistance. 

Mr. Turpen noted that the Airport has not received Federal funds for 

a number of years. 

Commissioner Mattison asked Mr. Turpen if he had a sense of the 
reaction. 

Mr. Turpen responded that since there are certain things with respect 
to the litigation just concluded and some of the negotiations which 
are going on, he prefers to handle it in another manner. 

Mr. Turpen noted that this is the first application tfnt has gone 
through in a long time and he would not predict the outcome. The 
Airport took action to rescind Section 4A of the Noise Regulation, 
that portion of the regulation as determined by the Court to be 
discriminatory. Staff feels that our obligations, as a result of the 



Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 9 



lawsuit, have been fulfilled as of this time. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre asked for some examples of eligible airport 
improvements . 

Mr. Turpen said that it varies from airport to airport. San Francisco 
has traditionally used airport improvement money solely for airfield 
projects. That has been a policy of this Commission and a strategy 
of the Airport for years. Other airports use these funds across the 
entire spectrum of airport activity. They can be used for terminal 
buildings, roadways and other activities. While these funds can be 
used for any legitimate capacity enhancing airport purpose, we have 
traditionally preferred to apply our full grant application to 
airfield projects. 



South Terminal Cigarette Vending Lease 
Exercise of First Option 

No. 92-0229 Resolution approving the first 

one-year lease option for the South 
Terminal Cigarette Vending Lease. 



Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3162 
Emergency Electrical Repairs, South Oxidation Pond 

No. 92-0230 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

Commission President in declaring an 
emergency and directing the Director 
of Airports to effect the necessary 
repairs. 



11 . Amendment to Airport Conflict of Interest Code Designated Employee 
List 

No. 92-0231 



10. Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3163 

Emergency Blast Fence Repair, Boarding Area "F" 

No. 92-0231 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

Commission President in declaring an 
emergency and directing the Director 
of Airports to effect the necessary 
repairs. 
Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 10 



Commissioner Brooks asked if the cargo van belonged to the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport does not have cargo vans. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if they had insurance. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he was sure they did but he would have to 
check. 

Ms. Gittens added that the declaration of emergency simply allows us 
to get the work done without the usual process. It has nothing to do 
with who would ultimately pay for it. 



12. Travel Training, Fiscal Year 1992/93 
No. 92-0232 

13. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 92-0234 Resolution, in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission of the Informational Meeting scheduled 
for Wednesday, September 2, 1992 at 7:30 PM at the Airport Hilton Hotel 
regarding the Airport Master Plan. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if a preliminary agenda would be provided. 

Mr. Turpen responded that typically the audience reflects two or three 
types of people. People who have been actively involved in the process 
and are well acquainted with it, people who may be acquainted with the 
process but not necessarily with the issues surrounding noise, and, people 
who want to come and share their views but who may not be familiar with 
the process and what has gone on before. He thought he would begin with a 
very short briefing to set the stage and answer some questions up front. 
The public would then be invited to share their concerns with the 
Commission. We will talk about two things: 1) the project and the need 

Minutes, August 11 , 1992, Page 11 



for the project; and, 2) the mitigation measures that are currently being 
proposed by staff to the Commission and which the Commission will be 
actively considering. The public will be invivted to testify to those 
issues and their specific concerns. At the conclusion of the evening the 
Commission will not only walk away with staff's feelings on the matter but 
also have a good sense of the community reaction to the mitigation 
measures which are being proposed. 

Mr. Turpen said that a Commission meeting is scheduled for September 1 but 
at this time he is not sure it will happen. He noted that the Commission 
may take testimony at the informational meeting but no business can be 
conducted. 

Ms. Rosales added that pursuant to the Commission's own rules it can meet 
off its regular meeting site for informational purposes only. 

Mr. Turpen said that if there is any business to be transacted from this 
it would probably occur at the September 15 meeting. 

Commissioner Mattison asked Mr. Turpen if he felt a need to do more recap 
or history of the Master Plan at the beginning of the meeting than he 
might otherwise envision for the benefit of those people who are not up to 
speed on the issue. 

Mr. Turpen responded that a public hearing was held in Burlingame about 
six weeks ago. A new group, CAN, was very concerned about getting their 
new organization up and running and their membership to the meeting. 
There were about 80 people at that meeting who had not been part of the 
process over the last three years. He said that it was beneficial to 
share with them what was going on because as they came to understand it a 
lot of their concerns evaporated. His desire is to make the meeting 
productive. We can listen to people make suggestions as to where planes 
should be flown but ultimately he wants the Commission to hear issues 
which it can and should be taking a look at and to begin to separate some 
of the extraneous issues. 

Mr. Turpen thought that the meeting should start at 7:30 P.M. There will 
be a ten minute briefing on the Master Plan, a ten minute highlight on the 
mitigation measures and then testimony from the public. Staff and 
Commissioners will be available after the meeting to talk with the public. 

Commissioner Mattison said that he was focusing more on creating a little 
bit of empathy for the process, i.e. what has gone on for three years. He 
felt that we might not get quite as much acrimonious one on one debate. 

Mr. Turpen said tha 

just happened over 

3-1/2 years. We ha 

public hearings. It has been an on-going, long term process 

something that just evolved in the Spring of 1992. Mr. Turpt.. 

he would be happy to include Commissioner Mattison's suggestion. 

Minutes. August 11, 1992, Page 12 




J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 



The Airports Commission will go into Closed Session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9 to discuss the litigation settlement of 
Marquez v. City and County of San Francisco. 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:35 AM. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, August 11, 1992, Page 13 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUM p ^ ,TC: nePT. 
OCT 1 5 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



MINUTES 



September 2, 1992 
Informational Meeting 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 
MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

September 2, 1992 
Informational Meeting 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 2 

B. ROLL CALL: 2 

C. SPECIAL ITEM: 

Proposed Airport Master Plan 

Mitigation Measures 2 

D. ADJOURNMENT: 2 






Minutes 

of the 

Aioorts Commission Meeting 

September 2, 1992 
Informational Meeting 



A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 



\. CALL TO ORDER: 

The Informational Meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 7:45 
P.M. in the Terrace Room of the San Francisco International Airport Hilton Hotel. 

The meeting recessed at 8:00 P.M. and reconvened at 8:15 P.M. in the Grand Ballroom 
of the Airport Hilton. 

The meeting recessed at 9:20 P.M. and reconvened at 9:40 P.M. 



B. ROLL CALL: 
Present: 

Absent: 



Patrick A. Murphy, President 
J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
Marie K. Brooks 

James K. Ho 



C. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1. Proposed Airport Master Plan Mitigation Measures 



September 2, 1992, Page 2 



D. ADJOURNMENT: 

The meeting adjourned at 11:05 P.M., there being no additional requests to address the 
Commission. 

^an Caramatti 
/om mission Secretary 




September 2, 1992, Page 3 



PRESENTATION TO SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

Mitigation of Impacts from Proposed San Francisco International Airport Master Plan 
September 2, 1992 



My name is Roger Chinn and I am here as Chairman of the Airport/Community 
Roundtable and as Chairman of the C/CAG Ad Hoc Committee on the Airport Master 
Plan Mitigation. 

As the Commission may know, the Roundtable consists of elected officials from the 
nine cities around the Airport and San Mateo County, as well as representatives from 
the Mayor, Supervisors and Airports Commission of the City and County of San 
Francisco. C/CAG, which is the Cities and County Association of Governments of San 
Mateo County, consist of elected representatives from 19 of the 20 cities of San Mateo 
County and the County Board of Supervisors. 

The individuals who have been appointed to represent C/CAG and the Roundtable at 
our negotiations with Mr. Turpen and his staff are: 

Mary Griffin, San Mateo County Supervisor and Chair to the Roundtable 

Subcommittee on Noise Insulation Funding; 
Ray Miller, Brisbane Councilman and Chairman of C/CAG; 
Pat Kelly, Hillsborough Councilman and Vice-Chairman of the Roundtable; 
Roberta Teglia, South San Francisco Councilwoman; 
Gary Orton, Mayor of Belmont; 
Janet Fogarty, Councilwoman of Millbrae; 
Representatives from County Legal Staff, Planning and Public Works, and 

SamTrans Planning and Engineering Staff; 
and myself, Roger Chinn, Mayor of Foster City, Chairman of the Roundtable and 
the C/CAG Ad Hoc Committee. 

C/CAG, by consensus on August 13, 1992, and the Roundtable, by vote on August 26, 
1992, concurred with the Ad Hoc Committee to have presented to the Commission the 
results of the past 2-1/2 months of discussions and negotiations with Mr. Turpen and 
his staff. The result of those meetings is a comprehensive package of mitigation of 
impacts described in the EIR for the proposed Airport Master Plan. 

On behalf of C/CAG and the Roundtable, we are asking the Commission to review and 
comment on our draft Mitigation Proposal dated September 1, 1992. This proposal is 
an agreement between the Commission and C/CAG, and consist of two elements: 

1. An Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of the 
Roundtable. This Amendment adds two parts to the MOU: a) A Noise 
Insulation Funding Program, and b) A Joint Work Program on aircraft 
operations and procedures. 



2. Mitigation of traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Airport Master 
Plan, and consist of a Traffic Study, Transportation Mitigation Measures, 
a Congestion Management Plan, and a Joint Work Plan. 

The Noise Insulation Funding program is the result of realistic analysis of dwelling 
units that are being impacted now and in the future, regardless of whether these 
homes are within any noise contour line, or are being impacted by single event noises. 
For example, the noise contour line may run down the middle of a street; on one side, 
the homes are qualified for noise insulation. On the other side of the street, those 
homes are not qualified or will be prioritized lower than across the street. This is only 
one example of an illogical system. In order to resolve this issue, we suggest that our 
proposal, or a similar one, be the goal of the Commission. Supervisor Griffin, who has 
chaired this effort, may wish to speak further to this issue. 

As important, and I believe to be more important than the Noise Insulation Funding, is 
an effort to implement the many issues for lessening noise, studied and analyzed by 
the Roundtable for the past ten years. In that regard, we are proposing that a Joint 
Work Program be initiated to result in actions and procedures to lessen noise from 
aircraft operations. We are confident that, after so much study, that many if not all the 
listed goals, when implemented, will have a major positive effect by improving the 
health, safety and environment for all the people in both San Mateo County and the 
City and County of San Francisco. 

Traffic mitigation is a critical element of the proposed Master Plan. In our study of the 
Master Plan, it is evident that a number of steps need to be addressed. A cooperative 
effort between the cities and counties need to begin to start a traffic study, to identify 
specific measures that need to be developed, and a Joint Work Plan for inter-county 
transportation issues. As Mr. Turpen has indicated at our meetings, a fair-share 
assessment of needs and resolution of traffic impacts can be a positive direction for all 
of us. 

Accordingly, the Ad Hoc Committee request the Commission give due consideration 
for the draft Mitigation Proposal. We feel this Proposal is a comprehensive package 
which lists issues that need to be addressed due to the proposed Master Ran and can 
be supported by the cities of San Mateo County, both Counties and the Airports 
Commission. 

In conclusion, I would like to say that for the past ten and one-half years, the 
Roundtable and the Airport, together with representative of FAA, the airlines and the 
pilots, have developed an excellent working relationship. Many new ideas and 
programs towards the lessening of noise have been generated. We need to now take 
the next steps, a joint and cooperative effort between all parties relating to the Airport 
in both counties, in resolving the issues identified in the draft Mitigation Proposal. 

Other members of the Ad Hoc Committee are here as well as staff members to speak 
and to answer any questions. 




CAN 

Coalition of Airport Neighbors 

423 Broadway #521. Millbrae. CA 94030 • 415/692-4900 
September 2, 1992 

Patrick A. Murphy; President 
San Francisco Airports Commission 
San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Mr. Murphy; 

On behalf of the Coalition of Airport Neighbors, we would like to thank 
you for holding a meeting on the proposed Airport Master Plan Draft Mitigation 
Program on the Peninsula. 

SFO's economic benefits are appreciated in San Mateo County. We want 
the airport to grow; we need the revenues and jobs an expansion will bring. 
We also want SFO to be a good neighbor, to be accountable to our county's 
laws, planning procedures and community needs. 

As we are all aware, SFO is not located in the city or the county of San 
Francisco. You have little incentive to be responsive to problems that you 
cause. Some of us were in San Francisco last May when your Planning 
Commission automatically approved the Environmental Impact Report for your 
$2.2 billion expansion plan, without a comment or a question. The citizens of 
San Mateo County are a bit more curious - and careful. 

Suppose the shoe was on the other foot and the County of San Mateo 
wanted to build a $2.2 billion complex in the heart of San Francisco. Don't you 
think some questions might be raised? Don't you think the citizens of your 
city would demand that money be spent to mitigate predictable problems? 

SFO is the largest economic entity in our county. You are the largest 
developer. Unfortunately, you have avoided your responsibilities. You have not 
provided promised noise insulation funds for our homes. You have failed to 
spend your own money to resolve traffic problems. You have done nothing to 
alleviate housing shortages that your airport has helped create. 

In the spirit of cooperation and goodwill, we present the following 
proposals. 



* 



On airport noise: 

- Guarantee funding to soundproof all eligible homes by the year 2000 in 
Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco and the 
unincorporated areas of the county, as certified by your own 1983 noise 
contour map. 

Abandon your scheme to draw a new noise map so you can drop half the 
homeowners who have been promised insulation since 1983. Drop your plan to 
eliminate all homes that have changed hands since 1983. As you are well 
aware, these proposals could eliminate at least three-quarters of all eligible 
homes from the funding program. 

- Impose a curfew to stop takeoffs and landings of noisy aircraft during 
late night hours. 

- Impose a surcharge on noisy aircraft and those who fly too low. Use 
those penalties to help fund the residential insulation program. 

- Guarantee that all entitlement funds — estimated to total $70 million - 
impounded by the FAA as a result of the Q707 dispute be immediately 
transferred into the residential insulation program. 

- Prohibit outside testing of jet engines at night. Require that these 
"power run-ups" be done in insulated and enclosed hangers during night-time 
hours. 



On traffic: 

- Acknowledge your responsibilities to our community and make SFO 
accountable to the county's congestion management program to reduce traffic 
gridlock on Highway 101 and adjacent streets. 

- Stand ready to pay for needed off-airport road construction that will be 
necessary as SFO expands and the estimated 140,000 more vehicles each day 
fill our freeway and streets. 

- Delay the approval of the expansion EIR until a traffic study is 
completed and mitigations are approved. 



On housing: 

- Stop opposing housing in areas where it is permissible and safe. Get 
out of local land-use issues over which you have no authority. 

- Provide funding for affordable housing in San Mateo County, just as 
developers are required to do when building major complexes in San 
Francisco. Based on your own city's formula, you should contribute at least 
$44 million toward local housing. 



On building a new relationship with San Mateo County: 

- A acknowledge that our community should remain informed. Schedule 
more meetings in San Mateo County as the EIR approval process continues. 

- Mitigation measures must be written as signed and enforceable 
contracts. They cannot be written as Memorandums of Understandings. 
Agreements to agree are meaningless. 



Thank you in the spirit of regional cooperation. 
Sincerely, 



^^£^y i\ * 




Marilyn Rossi Lou Dell'Angela 

Co-chair Co-chair 



I i 



1 : 



g""I-= Is! 

ft" "J >••" • 3 

III P 

5 B u _ • 



** *■» 5 ■» ^ 5 • ** 



8 % 



J5i|.*||"- » 

"o £ *< ■ a S- « a a 

2 S- }>C,e E »« S «- *> a 



8. 8. 8. 8. 



S-g^SiEi- 






O </> 



c ™ 



o v> 



& 8- 



3 I 



— « 



2^ 

■D 
3? 



8. 

a 

Q. 

}„ 

a ;r 

1* 



8- 

■D _ 

a £T 



s . 

— a 

■ 

— o 

Q u"> 



V 

2 


1 


— 


"~ 


a 


L. 


> 
a 


8. 


I 


-i 

LU 


2 


U 




in 


o 


■o 








c 


| 


co 




I 



■Z o 



i Z 



I 8 l 



?s 

Si 

si 



1 1 

at a. 

ss .? 

o 
z 

°g 

oi 1 
■1 I 

h * 

"1 ! 
« I 



e 2 

° ■ oo 
g o - 

_» UJ 

S— B 

858 = 

"" « •ox 

3"S° 
2 «> 
■ o fi. o 

3 O >» 

u> i_ o 
g ax 

s g g - 

o _. a 

' j« « ° 
c ** Ifc 

"8" 8- 

8 •» ■ * 

£ — t) o 

* 2f 3 



B| ! 



<n o « 



■ a ■ 

•*. C >.»« 

o t *■ 

oi s. <-> 

z ^ — * 

; • z <o 

. u 



• kl V" 
CO O fc. O _ 

I III? 

u o ■ 

- «! S = 7 

S c « = "3 
.2 8^2 2 

fc - Is] 

• o -^ • 

<n e — O > 

I -. i. a 

S J "5 « * 

.^ o ■ co C 

-n £ — «j 

«- M u 
a, a « 

^ f «-« s 
Ills' 1 

g 8 J^ 

S3 Su»3 

01 oo" 

5 l5.iL238 

° r- • * m 

2 *%"% 

• * 3 Y. H 

Ml 8 i B 

«• c c •» — _ 

5 — • « ■ 

• u 

TJ _ M W I g 

< — o | So 



.Z, >• O "^ 

° 2a . 2 i 

B C « 9 m ■ I 

EL 3 « 2 2. 5. 
Sift v s 

_ " * -r, ■ U ■« 

s-.lfa- 

v«>i Si 
-2 B S"S£i 

■ B<J> 




— 5 m 9 ■ ° 
ijllll- 



o «- 8 

Seel S] 

£ O u 

8 * £ 



> 1 -n 

2 S5^ 



a C 



TJ ■ 



n 



!l! J i-|| 
■Is .12 



|2 K ^ 



°-s i-l 

°s? 

Ill- 

sir 

58"i 



P UJ 

« iJ< t — — 
■ in a. a o — ~ x 



-ill 

2-g 
In - 

32g» 

• • L. fa 

, : 2 E I 



! 8 

i. j 



a I 



2, s. 


s. 




£ 


* 


o» <a 


01 








m a 


a 




"8 


1! 


* 1 


S 




L. 


u 

•8 


*-< *-> 


*J 








11= 


1= 


~ 


u 


I 

u 


it fri 


J5-i 


~ 


i! 


ft 












3 2. 


■o . 




"O 


"D 


5 o v> 


1 2 

O Crt 


| 

(A 


1 


1 



i 8 



U "8 1 H 1 ? 1 s 

91 at v> vi a «i v> >• 

•I 4> 11 41 «J 11 V ■- 

! I I I I I I : 

o o o o o o o 

z Z Z Z Z Z Z fl 





1 i 






a 


.2 S 


u 


IS o 




2>J8 

aim o 

L Oil t 




?° 


< a 




- $ x 








v> o w o 

O — (J 


■1 



8* 

— ^ 

k 

o — 
■ (i EL 

ih 

135 



• IS 

• « £ ~ 

u 2 

H I "8 ° 

•c — • 
c 8* 

ill* 

2 ** o > ~ 

II j s 1 

K 5 8 

si §"8 1 



i : 



C w 

tl L, 

R 8. 

I ! 

I 8 



i 2 

§ ° 

i s 

■ 

w o 



a 



3 3 



"I 

c ~Z 

"8. 

u 






t- • 

I. c 
a. — 



g"Sl* 

O III 

£ a.£ o 



| u. Q Q. 

SS..S 

U Jo 

ua* 

m X >. S 

o ~ « 

lilt 

•lilt 
— u 

.8 8" 
5*1 

to" 

ilti 



c 



_ O u. B 
■ M 

• If 9 



*» a y i- ■ 

• — * 8 _ 
3--. B.TJ 
«o o i- C 
c «- — 3 



_ m 

x . O <x 

« o, o a 

jo ,5 g oc 



^^ — u 



i S3 






<- ° o ■— 



<" ? 

o> p 

■ ^ i s i 

** ' 4.TJ « 



M tl O «J 

8 - 5 • ? 



.? = "* £S 

IS S3 

5 g c o ._ 

° |.Sf r ? 

ui*OlS.| 

I p 1- o ? 



ii B ».t; ij 3 ■ 
5 .- a oS-C c 



- I 






* E X «- • 

n 
< «j < s « 



•O « y o 

• 2 E - 3 >- 

5 «-«. ■ s w 

« -Q -o 8 

° c o I >L 

V w O D •< < 

O irt <a CD 

~l J * 

he c in c 

St;*"* 

sps|| 

58SS 8 §- 

* ■ t — 

B t* 

• ■ .,-j} *„_ 

it: J* 

■ • o i m 

< I c Q. O £ 

1 CO O 10 C ♦* 



I 1 

i, i 

u », 

O 6 u 

*• •• 

_ i * 



_ • 
1 



1? 

«» 

3t 



g g 



* I 8 



£~8 



TJ 8 



g 8 s 

** ^ h 

S 1 1 

T> I 

| I « 

8 • S 

I I 5 

O < <J 



6 5 2 Si m 



f" •■ fM 

» • H 
a a a 



1 ! I 
Si 

Z c 

« * 5 

1 1 ; 

1 8 

k 8 



5 5 3 

O O •— 

f ry (v 



5 5 



§ § 



fr 


fr 






1 


1 


s 


i 



S 1! S "8 



"8 1 



III! i SI 


t addre 
t addre 



s » 



8 • 



i - g 

s S « 

i s 

1 1 • 

! " S 

? « "" 

B. t; £ 

8 S 

1 = 

5 o o 

< V> V) 

t $ i 

3 U u 

•* m <o 

<m <M <m 



1-2 Z 



u 

> x 

w 

O 1 
41 41 

*- ■ 
41 

t>S 

£2 



K 



5 i § is 

S 8 









• <- 

I? * 

•* c 






I = = u 



i 

i 

=1 1 

i ■ OJ 41 

I — l/> Tl ►- 



is - 
5 i 



s 

1 



2 f 
2 M 



II 

s 
Is 



ig 5= = 2.2* g 






ii * 

g * • 



in 

sSl 

1 vi ~ 



O *» — ■ 

° ■ o 

u J Ii • 



u. S O 41 



«1 



J. 3* 

t. o u 
11**1 

M O > 

41 X C 

■"IS" 

V — M 

2 

*" Si o 
(_ *J 

41 L. O 3 

■ "ft. 

•> """u c 2 

4i «j ._ e u 

.2 ? ■ 1 ■ 

llf-i 

■ 1 i 

y 5 o r o 

i E *< 8 « 
c u 

m c ** o — 

— So—*' 

v|3 ill • o 

v ii n « 
■ E 4i a. t 



h i 



i 5 



J 

■ 

. Il 

8 r2 

it:- 

tS o o 

1 X ^ 

■a a 

*- i * 

I'Cv 

2 2- 

■ Q ■ •" 
41 E o 

> 3 — • 

— ■ — 

j i-. u <-■ 

o « " 1 

£ 41 41 £ 

— M t. w 

« 

'■5 2-2 ^ 

"? I- S 
if" 

Z ? • 9 2 

filll! 



I 



1 

Si 

8 "g 

a I o 



Is* 

<- -t 
SSg, 

id 



^ ** •* 



,«i 



- II u « " 






* s a 

L*a o •* — B 

O Q. fc 4» uu 

■ — 1 UJ — — • 





5 


if 


l 


t 

a 


i 




i 




! 




a. 




s 




1 


* 


w 


s 


■ 


I" 


s 


u 




El 


i 


> • 
Zg 


i 




« 


*• J 
a 

s *• 


1 

<* 

i 


H* 


i 


f "3 


§ 


— u 




E 


ol 


j 




e 


o ^ 




if 


1 

a 


Q. 


• 


«8 


: 


|1 





i; 



8- 

& 
1 


a) 
8 

a 


j 

■ 


m 
g 


U 

a. 

< 


8- 
& 

a 
c 


a 
o 

& 




a> 


a 


a 


£ 


mm 


*~ 


u 










U 




o 










O 


o 




E 


■ 


e 


1! 






V 


C 


c 


c 


l_ 








3 








* 


3 


3 


(A 

a 


"8 

ID 


CA 




g 


■ 


<A 

a 




■ 


Iff 


(0 








c 


■ 





tl 




c 


c 




1. 


U 


U 


Si 


~ 


"■ 



o a o 



! i 



>& 



mo m 
§ 'oj*". 

gas 

SfuS 

*"« 

111 

x£ •» 

U 

* a i 

o _. 

:u 



2 z 



h 

u r 

B 

a 

■ 

5 



ill 

a;u 

■ M 

li 



1 £ 



^ 8. „ - 



8. a 



! ii 



?S 



Jm to 
o ir> S. 

Q — l/i 



I 



i 

m 

4) 

I- 

I 

i s i 

8 = 2 I 

«J 3 l/> m 

6 S S 

a. a. a 8 

IA <A ■ m 

3 5 5 £ 



•Ig 



3>S 

u5 


a. 

5 


V ' 




:s 


</> 


S-, 




si 


CA 




1 

C 


le 


- 


■1 


a 


c 






o 


£< 




o 




a) S 

>. u 


1 



si t 

s! * 



is 5 

a 

li ■ 



5 .c o 
x li a 

. -X u - w 
£ W ■ 5 

*" ""* J • 

c Jo *> 6 o 

cjS 2 £ §• 

« -o « £ < 

• if t 3 «- 

o '*>.*» • • 

— — ff O C o 

— — 0. ■ «* C 

■ t> « o £ 
•> c 2 o « 

3 - a c S 

-Kl) o-Ji 

8 — .C ■ 

B « c J 

Wilts' 

* », 2 8-vi 

■ I c o o _ o 

— « -• .5 — 

X c £ _ 

r- — *J «j -c o 

" o ° 8 

j? s oi i '-£ -r 

• 2 >.?sif 8 

— — — _ o 

■o •> E ** I •* 
<0«£32O— 



ill 

— x "- 
TJ Y 



v o 



O 

c t. ■ 

Co" 

8 ls 

o. a.JS 



J- 

< w 

r " I s 

u. i_ o 

■ o 

g» 8 • 

f .20° 

CUM 

IS 88 

' • 

■ "j • u 

8o » 
4, **_ 
£ T> 

_. *♦ 

■ f 
««—•»-.£ 

O — ** 

• ** 

jC e o 

0*i? 



0? 

— £ a 

a ,_ 



O (A w 



5 2 . 

C >> w 

a o u 
x a 

(j OB 

— a) 

z "1 

is 3 
-8 . 

If Is 

_ a* v • 
u o 

iJ: 5 

is ■ 

*8-i 

£ U u 

■o ^ 



Slil , : i^ 



rg K) 



.? 


(A 




• 3 • 

2 1 


c 
a 


i 


8 




o> 

a 


lis 


>. 




« 






*- * ■ 


i 


I 


a> • o 


? 


c 

i 


51* 


a 


•* ., 


. 


u i 


I si 


& 


o — 


.^ 


? 



a • 

U (A 


u ^ 
• 


L. 


a « 


O B 


■ 


H 82 




• 


3 u» 
«o in 


8 

• 

is 


sii 

• u. 




li 


? u 


£|i 


— 


Pi 


— 


— W> 




C 


8" 


fjf 


U — £ 


I existing 
violations. 

violations. 


o 

fji 




£u o 

aj o *■ 


i-i 




8^ . 


*2 . 


ioer 
Ities 

fine 


Is 


-o! 

u.2 


Cons 
pena 

levy 


hi 


O u 
^00 

I si 



1 1 I 



3 3 3 5 

■ tf) (0 (A 

a a a a 



i i 



11111 



111! 



£ 


£ 


£ 


£ 


* 


S 


s 


i 


s 


* 


£ 


* 


s 


a 


■8 


15 


* 


1! 


n 


"2 


1! 


X 


s 


* 


1! 


| 


"8 


■ 


c 


u 


c 


(. 


I. 


u 


u. 


L. 


U 


L. 


L. 




C. 




8 


8 


8 


* 


5 


•8 


* 


* 


8 


-8 


* 


? 


8 


- 


(0 


■ 


*M 


0) 


■ 


*tt 


0) 


a 


(0 


« 


<0 


'« 


« 




§ 


g 


g 


g 


g 


g 


g 


g 


g- 


g 


g 


c 
o 


| 


1 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


u 


II 




(A 


n 


2 


2 


1! 


2 


IS 


8 


a 


2 


i 


& 


8 


8 




■D 


■o 


■o 


"D 


■D 


"O 


t> 


■o 


"D 


■o 


T) 


■o 


■o 


a 


1 


1 


8 


i 


1 


1 


3 
o 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


g 


o 



g 

L. 

i* 



o — 

o 2 



5 wi 



r 



p c 

^ — ■ 



! S-3 



3* 






g- siL 



•> « — 

** • I. 

£ V 



to ." 



I. 



Sfe 






32 

— n 

a a 



Siis 

9 cm 
S c 

* *^ _c o 

hi" 

u S «i «•• 



Si" 

• £ 
"5 






2.2 
S « 

II a. 

41 UJ 
u £ 



2 § 
J 2 



a 6- 



II 



28 



J 

Is 



-833 



Cm 



i' 



ID V 

ii 
O — • 



8 ii 1 



s « 



g* 

~ c 

r 

«•- — CI 



-A 



■ 

X> 

— « 

f I 



§8 



8"„ 

fi 

«- £ IB 

g. £ 

• "" at 

s|s 

3 ■ 3 

°3S 

■- « L 

£ 5 = 



o c e 
* 5 

- £ s . 

:!• 

c c 



« >■ £ 

"O - - 

ii: 

»■« 



£?S 

I ■ .c 



Ig 

o 

.3 



fl 



11 1 

O w 



IE 

■ •- 
I 5 . 



"3 
«S 

o H 



2S 



£- c 

I w (J 



5 I 

y 
° <o S « . 

i«- •- ■ t. 

'< ti f >- 5 
ni ■ >. 



! -K _ c c 
i. • pj ■ c 

— . ~n> ~i> i 



if l|.?sl 

•— Q. CO >■ j; Q. «- 



CTJ" 

S *"* _. I " 

f. T; > c 

« M O o 0» 

£ c £ <- 

S c . 

•»■ • _ 

- u •> 

c « '^ * " 






— I ■ 2 
■Ji if ^ 
- " ?f 

•> y Q. 

5-3 

c UJ 



II 



Nil! 

f ■ 3 U 



8l°r 



— t • 
< — — £ * 



2 5 

J « 

"c 

i 

8 S 

I \ 

■ 

at w 

— ■ 

M ■ w 

5 • 
« — 

81 i 
ij ' 

I 1 

?2 

"I 

« — 

f i 






i 3 



3 3 

<0 M 

a. I 



** «* tf 

I ! ! 



Cfl 09 

(A V) 

V V 



*.• 



u BJ C 

•- «l 
L. " 9 > 

*Sx 

-- I 

«J E I) « 



on moo vf eoooo -o 

■OONOlfK-Ni-OOOMOIMniN • 

OOOOOOin>»-«-0'»-^-»-0»»>»-0'.»-«-«-«-00»- 



oooooooooooooooooooooooon •> 
ooooooooooooooooooopoooo~ u 
o»-f\jKiv»u"i'£^ooO'0«-f\iro»»uiiN-eO^O»-»\JroO 3 



5 5 



*U5 

— X </> X 



o ~ ~ --- -. 



I if 



< s 

i! 

I 



• ** ■• 

_i ♦< — W C 

£« .- I 

UJ < • 

> 5; 5 
. f ~Z ■« 

i- "-• 

w — O *- 

Y • I 2 5 

- 8"o 4.-J. 



3* 



it 

*- 

** 

* 2 



mis ?! 



° > ■ 9 a 



1 


3 






i 








1 


■w 


"D 


■j 




"J 


a 


3 


o 




41 




£ 








8 


l/l 


<A 




3 


? 


* 






S 






(3 






J 


a 


< 


-i 


a 




C_! 


M 


M 


M 




1 


->■ 




5 


<_> 


3 


o 


•• 


rj 


O 


- 


S 


h. 


►«-' 


CO 


a 


•■ 


•- 


•- 


— 


— 



Nisi 



IK 






! I 

5 S 

■a " 

! i 



8.J jj 

a " 

H 

I ■ c 

?. i 
: 2 i 

1° : 

— > * 

A 3 



3 8 3 3 83333383 

x xxx xxxifxxx 

o o o o ooo ooo o o 

c ccc cccccccc 

3 3 8 3 33333333 

<a i» • a u> ta to mum u> u 

3. Ill 3.3.3.2.3.2.3.3. 

2 5 5 i 222 2223 2 

a a a a <o to <o a a a a <d 

1 111 11111111 

ac ac oc ac ac <r a ac at ac ac ac 



■n 


1! 


"8 








■o 

C 


« 


-8 








3 
1. 
O 


I 


(A 




u 


u 


n 


J 


2 


•a 


■o 


■o 


3 


3 


3 



2- 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


i 


2 


£ 


£ 


£ 


£ 


"8 

<- 

■s 

1 

U 


■ 

g 
u 


• 

g 
u 


« 
1 

u 


15 

u 

■ 

g 


1 

V 

c 
o 


"8 
| 

a 
C 
o 
u 


X* 

U 

•8 

■ 
g 


*> 

■D 
CD 
g 


V 

■ 

g 


L. 

g 


1! 
| 

tf) 

g 

u 


is 


2 


2 


2 


2 


3L 


J! 


ii 


JJ 


2 


2 


2 


TJ 


"D 


"D 


■a 


■o 


■o 


■o 


■o 


"O 


■o 


•o 


■o 


3 


3 


3 


a 
5 


3 


3 

o 


3 


3 


3 


3 

5 


3 


3 



o 


JP* 








O.U. 


1 


Ml 


• 


t- 


1 


= i 


« 


« 




w a 


tf CM 


• * 


aft 




»* 


-s 


■ c 




c *-• 
E ■ 

■— u 



IS *- 



1 i 

2. >. *-> 

"8 8 5 - 

sift 

4, a >. o 

Mil 

> a. 

* s ? * 
"Sg-8 

fill? 

*"- > •< s 

v 8 2 

*3 fcS 

2 " 8*" 5 

*■ '5 B ~£ 

•5** * 

fSy . 

• «?* B 

■ E • 

w » u 

■ G ** < 

■ « o C 

w « v 1 • 
— a ■ C — 

*. 1 3 5 £ 
:88Sl 



ill 

> 

•» • c 

— JB C 

So* 



^g-8 

tl»L 

■..«£ 

>- <a (i 

«2g? 

l S3 *■** 



e i3 

g?g 

iis 



«, <0 -I 



lis 

a Km 

■igg 

28-2 
w e5| 

II ■ 3 0( 

1- » CD 



8 

a 

s gl 



S 2 



~z> ° 

2 

i 

a 

■ 



lit 

SfeE 

Jo- 

I'i-o 

> 5 £ 

•I L. • 

a 8 o 

o I 

CM 5 

r- ac 

i.i 

Ill 
:^ 

lil 



(I CM 



It 

8." 

X -J 

It 



ti 

S 8. 

8.-8 



It 

a — 



5r 



35 \\ 

8 5 8 3 



35 



— o 



— >« 



"5 8 

3 J 

i.I 

5 c 

8 W 



2 •■ 

5- 



II 
II 



s 


• 

3 




r\j 




* 


i 








in 


a 



hi 

S -S 8 

sis 



$ £ 



p I 

w ° 



5 § 

UJ U 

c & 

a a 

i 9 



8 8 

I i 

2 3 

8. 1 

■ 

v a 

o I. 



*3 

a ^ 

CM 

•> * 

o 
S x 



o> 



I 2 



w o 

? o - 
• ** o 

3 £ I 

CM 5 ff 

s i s 

I 3 ° 

u • 

s - s 
5 J f 

ill 

k « >- 
I 5 I 5 



or; B ' 

& J s -I -1 



h 



3 9 



8 2 

— > 



ft w 

5 Z? 

Ii 8 ? 

38- t ■ 

5^ 



8^ 

m o 



5r 



i; 

■I C Ui <•- 



3 s s 

o 

CO o ^ 



3 s 



1111 



g g 

s ? 

a ■ 

1 | 



8- 


R* 






8: 


4 


S 


s 



1 1 



4 

u s 

g - 

3 5 



S8 
83 



I? 

si 

— o 

i! 



8- 2 



i! 



• g 

> — 
(I _ 



vg 



E8, 



3 

VI 

a) 
£8 

13 



SI 

.si 



?g 






85 

— a 
v a 

o "Z 



2l 



L. — </> 



3 



f2 I 



*i s i 



S c • 

I I 

§- 1 

■8" 2 

■ c 

»i ° 

51 I 

n t 

?" s 
"8 - 

3 ° 



ii 



a o 

il 

r £ 



ii i 

■si * 

r i 

2 ~ •* k 

c« o a 






5 5 ;£ § £ § ^ 



Hi* 

2 ■ ? 

>t ** ** 

illS 



- ° >> 

IB • 

lis! 

.Z, — at 

jigs 

*> - CI 

§*?£ 

- 2 c ■» 



9 -C M t 



§ 

*Z ! 

* - SsSl" s 
"S; 2 I !f 8. S 

g£»J3 • 

I • • t • 

5 £0 M 

lfll3 | 

e o * c • - 

■ m a — z -j 

3 U 



g* 

3s 



S5 



ii!: 

° « £ o 

? i >■ ■ £ 



5 - « 1 « 

■ * « c 

5 • £ 1 S 

8 • Q.^ 

u c EU 



S r a ■. 

lihj 

^ m C 2 T 

isl|j 

8 « 5. -d 

• « o • 

• »* H ** 

•lf.2 
i % i Ii 

■ o - — < 



si 



5? 



si 

u — 

8 . 5 



• • 4. § 

- fc s 



Iff 

coo 
B m £ c 
o 3 « — 



i 



> 1 



] 

! 

i 

i 
I, 



S S 



* 


c 


E 


c 


I 


15 


X 


3 


u 


■ 


M 
S 


(A 
10 
Of 


■o 


1 


I 


L. 

1 



Si 2 



I- 5" | 

g l H S 

Bob ° 

8"^c| i 

3 "b a. Si 

Is tat" I 

«■; Q. „" tl 

^« »p«' ** 

° I "> ~ o 9 ° 

«u e a — 

w a a u g 

8 •> 5 *• fc 

|u|d S I 

u ■- o ._ Ji o 

Z — •*- L. fc, o l_ 






«i8*"8| 
ig535 



58 
22 



1 



8** « ■ ■• 



s 

** — 



II 
1* 



5? 



81 ■ 
tl 1. 
O) U 

Si 

« • 

St" 

fiat 

u II 

S*s 
*i = 

:« S 

■ 3 u 



t»2S2 

■gls 

■""a, 

— 2 a 

C o 

i 1 * 



*• c 6 



a o±5 
g 2 Si£3 

I- — tl CB 

".SI'S 

tl <- 

oi-Si 
M 5|1 . 

_ 5 M • 

2 „*> >? 



ti a 

ia ■ 

ti i- 

i- o 






B ? u 
B-i 

Is 

•« 

e° 5 

lol 

— ti 

— ti 

« « L 

U 3 O 
tl « 

si? 

•!• 

"t- 

g«! 

"St; I 
56. 



*s3* 3 
• *".tf * 

Si" 
-5?5g 

» u • 

" *" - 3 S 

8- I? 3 

*• 3 

i" '-5 



3 "1 

tl 
c 

t 



^i - ? | * o 

f ■■ kg 

3 8 ■ ° — 

■i:i;i 



S S 
i ■ ■ c 
i — | «« 



I 1 

1 : 



u « 

■Z a 
«. ti 



N 

s 

lis 



5*1 "^ 



1^ 

• «M 

i? 



• i 

a 
ti » 

Is 



• 1. 
=5 8, 



8 

»_ 3 

a 
■ 

8-2 

II 

tl 1- 

p ~z 



■ >. 
ti 

« a 

a 

3 . 

u — . 
•— ■ 
*• » 

8.1 

la 

■ ■ <• 

o *" • 

~z ■ ? 

is - 

E u — ? 

lift 

fc - g feL 

o5f L 
3" • 

>* o *4 
{T-c «i •> 
> • « a 

! ■! 

c 
•"5 c - 

i§ = ^ 

c — w — 
ti •> a 3 

iifl 






8 *•- 

4-* ^ 



— o 



2 t. 

s • 

"* • J J 1 

- 3 Q- 8 

2 8 >- 2 

° B o g 
ti _ a " 

ss| 3 

«s 2 i 

■s— fe — 

— «• 



E- 3 5 

i 






i **j 



3 ^r 
s„8. 

8 H 

2 • 

- • i. 
■11 

8 • fc 

|!« 

■ O tl 

< >- 



8 ** 

5-|?3 
8-ij8S^ 

•ilk 

r ■ u c o 



■ - u 



V i i 



Z o 



I: : 
11 I 






— T> 
O • 



— — u 



11 






! 1 



4-< *■» *■* 

! ! ! 



g g "8 g 
S 5 8 8 



o a 



> 


3 




£ 


u 


M 


a 


W ~ 




i. a 


1 


O <M 


■ 


8 £ 

> 


I 


a 3 

"82 


fc "S 


*- m 


C • 






o 


§ S 


!" 8 


u — 


ll 


2 


8- 


I 1 


t> CO 




w •*- 


c ^> 


o 


a a 

(A « 


S <- 




— o 


C * 


E >■ 


— o 


._ a 




c * 


! s 




1 I 


ID 
3 


a • .5 

-5 i 


j 


• • *> 

•1 L. J* 
Si " 


I! 


l! 2 


*"e 


& 5 


= 8 


Si * 


1$ 



to u 3 



id 



H 






h 



I :■ §| 

at s • i 91 



c a 
11 

iii 



-&- 

[Us 

a o a 

g : t 



« ? ■ 



-"8 



** w » 

111 

.-£ 
• Si 

a 

?2 8 

h? 

■5 8 
J5S> 

sis 

"i 2 

■3807 

3"i." * J? 

ss is 

Sg-2 

in a C 



1 


£ 




"8 


■8 


E 


u 


l. 


c 


* 


* 




01 




■ 
c 



1 










ii 

TJ 


JB 

TJ 


L. 
1 








i 


3 


O 



* ■ 2 t 



1 



83 



• u 

-8 i 

h I 

« ^ -o 
a 

1 1 

8 i 

- o . 

" *• «. 
"8S -| 

I 11 i < o 

O m u w 

'" I ■£ >. 

s !£ 

« ° 5 

« "*■ 

11 

gr 

1? 



is 

0) 

w c 

— n 
£ O 

o >. 

"f 

u S 

— 3 

g». 



M 

c 



*s 



58 



g- 
la 

_. 5 «* 

it: 



1 •*• a. 



t ■ - 



g| 

ii 
la 

c 
"" a. 

5 
5 = 



I! 

-5, 



^J5 

i (M o 
■O . 

"^ . CD 

S • e •- 

I " I. L 

CO »- H •" 
IN w < 

c 
■a - . . 
I c ° . 

CO — J Q- 

S. 8 

Pi- 
pis 

2 a ■ 8 

c u S 

C M 

Sit 



j& 


$ 


^ 




"8 


I 


g 


i 


| 


1 


1 




i 


i 


01 

g 


u>* 


u 


u 


u 


>. 


i 


ii 


J 


■3 


■0 


■0 


■0 


g 


i 

u 


1 

u 


1 

u 


i 

[ 

a. 

s 

i 



. J 



< c 

gs- 

JS-S 



g & « 



l> — . w 



sr' 5 " 

a||j 



>-"0 TJ 

a • 

22v 

8g| 
- "2 

1-8. 

■ „ « 

C = l 






58 -s o 3 



H 5 



« w S 






11 



— u 



Sri c 

^*- 1 ■ g 



>j — >• 



■ sgs 



• ^ 



gg 



si 3 gl 8 si 






— •* • at 

1*11 

1 6 •- 

i 5 o « 

1=1 e 
8 8l2 

u — a 1 



51 ^. 



! 1 



! I 



£ 


£ 


O 


o 


O 


»4 




Oi 


* 


■8 


1 


1 


1 


E 

c 


'I 
c 


1 
c 


| 


| 


■o 




« 








« 


01 

g 


X 


3 


3 


"8 


"8 


"8 




o 


O 


O 


OI 


■ 


CO 


u 


U 




*" 


*" 


(A 

■ 


V) 


CA 

0) 


JS 


2 


8 


£ 


8 


| 


1 


1 


1 


■D 

3 


1 


■o 

3 

U 


1 

u 


o 
at 


o 
as 


o 



s 


o» 


a 


a> 




*j 


M 


** 










"8 


E 


E 


E 


c 


c 


C 


C 


* 




"" 


*~ 


§ 


1! 

CO 


"8 

01 






CO 


■ 


<fl 




0) 


01 


V 


2 

-o 


1 


1 


1 

a 



s s 



3 

0) L. 

E* 

C C 

-8. 

to CO 



.2* 
■o — 



tl CM 



£ s 



*g 



sk- 
ills 



a ■£ ■ 



* * _ 

85 

HI 

a 

81 



M " 

8 



— »- «> ' 



85 

Si *» 

— — O t) 



■ « 

<» i; 
. c o> 
• "" o 

8-5 
£So 

sis 

u a u 

8»8 
"II 

** < 5? 

J! 83* 

l. •o3 

£ .«s 



■Z a) 

-s 

3.8 

a 
u « 

■C 
01 *> 

-g 



-? 8,1* 

ti «-• n 

oi n * w 

o i> *- 



I. 



l:i 21 









if 

U < 



if] 

■. *" r 
s8i rS 



!".r 



fi-2 



i g 

Bs 
01 « 

<a 
O 

1? s 

M 
h 

.2 £ 

s 

"2 



I 2 



3 ■ »» </» U 



J 1 

*. 5 "1 



II 

T U 

■ 

■ n 



8" * 3 

t> 01 ■ a. 

rHo< 



f 5* 



> c 

■sfj 

£08 
8 °- 

8.§S 

8! 8.1 



lot 
I*. I 

Ilj 

« w v 






<0 _ 



01 >> 

Is 



i = is 

83 c- 



> — 



•- • 

— a. 
c j» 

a en 



01 *o 
01 £ 



s«i 



is* 

o e a 
1- «-• o 3 

S'S-tg 

E -i - « 

™ «-< '-' 

1 g 38 

Sri s - 
flsz 



n 

O- 

si 

■ M 

01 *• 

— o 

H 

£ 9 

• « 

il 



SS 

o 0£ 

o 

ii 

I s 

si 



83 



5S 



"8p 

8 SR 

ii 8 

* X 

■ •• 
<- u 
« ex 

g|g 

a <n 

il 



2&* 

So '"" 

Of • • 

gol 

g »-• o 

~ E ■ 
• o° 

>/> u ^ 

1 "S 
«"2 S 

■ °e 

Se". 

1- — 01 

5 ,8 

c ■ 
> •> 

01 9 C 

2 & ■ 
5 

lit 



3^3„ 
■ Be- 
lt ■ 

01 • nc 

6 a B 

11:1 

•fiti 

x a 5 u- 



I 8 

f ! 

-' M 

I ? 
1 2 

it 



11 



On 

-Q UJ 



8- 



u • 









5 3 1 

5 I c 



g s 

8 8 



3 3 



8- 


fr 






| 


K 


8 


a 
c 



§" 


§• 8- 






it 


& & 



2 X JS 

T> T> TJ 

lis 



1 1 



■ 


1 


c 




1 


HI 


crt 




if 


*■ 


E 

s 


3 


*rf 


w 


o 

z 


€ 






3 * 

I* 
II 

*3 



is 



Is 



II 



s IS 



"5 

1! 



i 



% 

"Z * 
8« 

M 

■ a. 
2! 



S< 



si 



12 g 









u 

r3 



-I 

J, u 

L. 

8. J 



5 5 

1.. 

c " 



o 

Is 






2s &J 



5 o o < i 
u « «- * a 

s 





i 


B 










* 


1 


1 




A 


♦^ 


I 


s 


o 






</) 


v> 


1 


o 


*• 


o 


fi 


o 


£j 


J 


•■ 


•" 



it 

fi 

S? 

I -: 

I " 

o is 
• li 

I gs 
i ? - 

» 1 ■ «.' 



.2.2 



8-1 

u O 



f. , 



« — 
w «/» 

£2 

*| I 

■°" i- 

• - . "i 

S ■ 2 8 

r,if! 



* c - S 
2 S ii *- 



a. 
1-. 



? ii 

• s ~ 
| 1« 

;!! 

u g" 

8. r 

2 • 

— « 

2 2g 

S pi 
5 i« 

s - 8 



rf ** 




M 


• 


I 


u • 


8 




3 


» 




< 








K 


i 


s 


a. 

m 


a. 




i 




M 






K 


3 


3 






e 


— 


rvi 


*J 


o 


^ 


*• 


»■ 




r\j 


(M 


rg 


fM 






? I 



5 


i 


Si 

o 


I 

E 


VI 

i 


5 

c 



tl V 

I I 



* "8 S 



? ? ! 



O o K 

»** 8 

-§|a 

M no. 



■ u « 3 



2 3 



*" ~- ss I 

— C 3 & 

];-• o 

c a *s 

a -g a f u 

a a. > 



stil 

a 3 3 -n 
a> «i », • 



* ■ " > 

I u _ « "O 

_ • e 5 ■ 3 



SSSSSS 

llllll 

"a "a "a "a a "a 
x x x x x x 
t> ti it 9 « 

IsIlIS 



s a a c 

L. L. t_ (_ 



8- 


& 


8- 


8- 8- 8- 8-8- fr 










& 


& 


& 


&&&&8:8: 


1 


S 


S 


s s s s s s 



i- L. L. t. 1- S- 
OOOOOO 



tl t> tl e ■ « 

2 2 2 2 2 2 



91 g> in « « « JJ 

a a a a a a "^ 

ti ti ti ti ti ti 

C C "c C C C — 



nun i 



s ? 

I i 

< S 

• a 

^ i 

i * 

M 



2 i 





s 


eg 





IM 


Kl 


(M 


IM 



£ >. 



E i ** o 



Si> 5 

o 5 
1*1 1 I 



3 

0) *" 



so 

■C a 
C «■» • 

- 2~2 9 2 

O I c« 

-c £ a o oc 

1 "1**3 

i « 2 _ c « 

E u a a a — 

a o* «a 

J* 5J« r 
! 5 <j "» 

" ti ci; S 

c o - ■= 2 

-uc?3 

8 o u 



Sc a < 
a £ 1- 

M c/> *» _ » ft 
o a 



« f ■ ^. 

a u > *» 

c I o 1 

III I 

u 1 • < 

« s 



I 



t o--S 
■Z a a 11 

J! 



::i s 



o ti c u a 



rg •» in 



CM IM (M 



I- 13 

55 



5* 

If 

■ 

o a 

i\ 



</> T) 



* 8 



u •- 



35 

■£ a 

-8 

«n ti 



1 



53 

O IM 

18 



.« 

O V> 

o Z 

1 

?1 
II 

> m 
o f 

tl 



O <M 



2! 

IS 



IJ 

o ~ 

ti 



,J 


V) • 







tl . 


■f ° 




a m 







b° 




fcc 




tl u. 






— tl 


a — 


t~ 


— ^ 


ti 




f. 


a| 


?s 


<o 


u. 5 


* 


J 


** X 




X 




VI ti 


c > 


Si 




a 


a 




\\ 










*- < 


O CX3 




c 


Efl 


e ^ 


♦^ a 


U 


1? 



£ - * 

1. £ 
« *» *< 
£ (A 
** O 

■S S 

a 

■— a E 



"H S 3 

1. 
<-• > 

X O 

a x 

c a 



•8 

c 

3 
a 
a 

s 

§2 



t a. 



.11 n 5 3 



^"Sa- 



3 UTJ 

6*. • 

— 

hi 



Z a 
— B o 
t o 

i 

ill 

o x 8 



-( C H 41 U UJ*- — 



Q- V ^ C C -, c *- 

•=2 era ft c 

m &2*sj£ 5 
'■g o 1 j= o 

£?Sri5*2 l 

J";{l|hi 

• q. -0 -0 O o -D 

2.~SSSSSS 

* c cuuuuuu 



a 


a 


& 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


s 


5 


s 


s 


5 


c 



U "8 



1 1 1 1 



I 1 



£ 5 

2 1 

3 4 



h 

is 

8 

fi 

M 

If 

lis 

C w • 

•c ™ o 

•I; 

o a u 

til 



- I < o 



"2\ 

"0 w 

a 



is 

L. 

— a 



1M — 



2 u 

|| 

> 
o _ 

c 

ii 



i 
1* 



5 a 



2$ 

m •*- 
c • 



el 



■ ~ 9 

8r| 

I a c 



o « S 



5£X 

-13 

3 S 8 

u a.— 

CD O - 

« — . * 

S Si 9 

sirs 

c in 

fs§l 

If s | 

- o g g 

o'r „ ? 
-555 

ll = * 

» — _r 

x a 

■ • *• 
** m at 

-hi 



g § ^ s 

U l_ U 

t) C "- "J 

E in 

*-* fi 

;rr 8.£ 

</> o e > 



.„ 




"8 




t ro 








°i in 




a 




< .- 








CO . 


5 


s 

O) 


S 


a 


si 






Of 

•5 3 

■ at 

1. — 

1— IU 


g 

■ 


6 

U 

8. 




ae 







a : 
u • 

3 




1 


. 

CO — 


M 


u 


■ 



in 

< 

L. — 

O u. 

Is 

a *•> 

aa 



o g 

22 5 

* ft — "5 

SIS * 

-ES 5 

"5--. ° 

• ? oc 

°SS - 

||2 8 

3 5 a — 

il; J 



oi* 2 



2«- 

r ° s 

a£s- -s. 
ti — 

■a u 






32 .• 



Ii- 



.Si ss 

= — ^ uj -O 



II 



2 ils : . i 



2 & 



1 ,< 



I 



8 1 

w o 

ra 
a^ 

■ - o 



a 2 



tn — 

D > 

K O 

C t- 

- a. 



°5 
I* 

a 

"! 

& 




.S-. 

2 -.Si 

a w 
~2.2 

* i ■ 

L. ** 
3 U 

s ir 
128 

J I* 
i« 

l* 2 

-8* 



IS 



= • o 

lis 
"! = 

» o- 



5« 



CO ■ j, 

^2 



u « 
&2 



"8_ 

ills 



I n 






*8 



> T C « 

O •- u ~5 

K • H 

a «- oc 

t i- n- 

— o g hi 



ii 



■ a 

Is 



o — 

it 



<J— at 



1 -g j< 



1 If 



** — l_ 

I- w 

a 

*■? 

•> c • 

2r: J 

-co 

t U w 



"i *.« 

"So 



— a 



"g s § 

Ui 

S V > 

m k o 
« x 

55 2 

>.- * 

a * 
I" 8 

hi 

(_ — *j 

*-* "- -- 

2«* o* 
8 J 8 

1-5 ?» 

*8t5 

18 = 

»- ■ a b 



O I. 



I! 

_ c- ** 



^« 3 "B a. 

i- a o «- 

~ ° o 

| W V? S 

o» 8. 

- = S i 



i I 



is 



•gfc 1>£ "gS -gfc u£ 



5 8 

I" s 

Si 2 - 

•I <- 

» O 



c 9 — 

> ~ ■ 

o — < 



8-8 

■ — *• 
°- ^ — 

*r 
i-s 

< ■ s 

& 

i|| 

si 

Cs 

"Z m S 
-.« 

_ M 

i. a 
o o > 






I'! 

R «- 3 

o o < 



2*7 
IS 



I* 

a. ~ 

■o 

if 
ii 

M 

85 



1 ; 

I i 

I «« 

■ || 

if 1" 

v Cat 

£51 SS 



(0 4| 



8-8 

Is. 
I 1 



t « 
-S 



i| 

• a 

ll 
8 1 

4- , 

h 



U JJ 



5 • 
2 « <j 



S at 

c » 

■ B S 

2-3 ? 
•^ «> • 

ii " "> n 

> .- i a 

o I O- i_ 



iMI 

111* 

* I ■ o 
— > 

52ii 

£ 2 

■» ~ f . 



— i- 0) 



^ I ? 

D 9 -M 

> -O I- 

S 2 & 

'*! 



it 
A\ 

rl 1 



r«? 



?J S 



* £ 


1 g 


8-* 

«s 


8-2 
"8 


8-2 
•8 


X 

o 


3 
O 


9-° 

^8 


in 


* a 


^c 


^a 


^0. 


^c 


X 


JB 


« t 


"3 
-i 


•oS 


T,5 


t,S 


^5 


^5 


■D 


"O 


«l 


1 


















o v> 


O V) 


o v> 


O CA 


3 u. 


3 


3 


o </> 


4 


«J •— 


O " 


u " 


U " 


U " 


<j 


u 


U " 


















s 


















? 


















a. 


















8 




































w 












& 


■ 


• 


s 



= ? 



11 

u — 

8* 



is 

II 

IS ■ 

• « 

— 3 

it 



ill ni is 



g g g 



3 g I 



8. & 



8c 
25 

5 VI 



3 u 

si 



Si 

li 



i 1= 



I? 



?I 4 



J. 

— u 
c "> 

is 



£ S 



cl 

s" 



o w 



li Ji 



Is s 

■"■ CO 



■ 


s l 


•iJi 


« 


1 


g" 

« 8 


*2 


1 




2- 


? 1 




_ a> 


at"*- 






■! 

Is 


" c 

«l • 

Ol *j 

a C 

CO — 


"5 

t> 

*g 


c 

i 


■S IB 
O "^ 


CO a 

a 


g£ 


o 



48 

— w 
c • 

a — 



i 85 
1-8 

ill 



?1 f 

o * 

** c 

— a -o 

»1 1 

U I 

3. *- 

o *■ 

o 

it g 

it* I 

3 U 

•j a «i 

u 8 w 



*5 



c • 
■" u 

Si 

'I 

a 

— JT 
m a 
v — 



5* 

Ifl s 

1*1 

111 

a o u 

:"? 
.11 

eg E 

n i- — 

L. Q.w 

9 E c 
^■g 
w » — 

0) -c 

CD *- O 

■I w 

fj « _ 

-2J 

-**! 

CM 5 

" «° 

1 ~ *. 

ll 3 

g ^g 
If, 



? s 2s 

Z ?°« 

fc'c Q-3 
••-5 ex 

•I'D II- 



sS 


*~ 


sE 


"8 

■0 


1 


1 

■0 


1 


c 


■ 

c 

1 


s 


£5 


a? 


a? 


■ 


a 

3 


a 


a 




10 


O «- 


.- 


£■ 




i> 






"8 






■a . 


"D . 


■0 . 


















■ £ 


2 


" 2 


*■ 


*■ 


"•" 


*" 


(A 



at 


>- 


*c 


*a 


*a 


2 


i 


J 


J5 


1 




■3 


2! 


si 


22 


■0 


■o 


■0 


■D 




"E 


1/1 


1/1 


1/> 


1 


1 


1 


1 







i 


•-• 


U " 


U " 


u 


u 





u 


■ 






















1 




















? 




















a. 




















s 
















? 




«■> 
















.* 




1 






















<j 














& 




w 



2S 



CO £ 

S3 



Sil 

to I 

u £ p 

•!l 
111 



M ■" — 



3 >» 



o 3 



l. 



J 8 

o w 
oc « 



8 £ 



o — 



i * 



2 - .5? > 



£ ■ * 

a — ■ 

He 
i "a 

1*1 



I ■ 

» v ■ 

< 3 — 



> ti 



„ o 

si 
si 



2« S 

=5S « 

O C .- 

- i 
ft - 

s » i 

si * 

i 

J! 

■ • 

li " 
si 5 

^g = 



f 



si 
i 1 

it 



B5 



£ I - 



5* 



gj: 

CI o 



I I 

I I 

c 

1 ' 



















8- 


8- 


o o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


V 


1 










i_ 


i_ 


c 




O 


1 


S 


8. 8. 


8. 


a. 


8. 


a. 


s. 


3. 


o 






m a 


■ 


m 


0) 


(A 


CO 


■ 




o 


o 


"SET!:? 




uS 


"82 


"82 


*2 


"SS 


1 


■ 


• 
















a 






Q.O Q-o 

■ g* g 


□.in 

■8-: 


1™ 


■8~ 


O ru 


9-° 


o .- 
TJ . 


3 

o 


<A 

■ 


a 

a 


■ £ 


" g 


■ g 


a £ 


"g 


"g 


*■ 


c 




ii ii 

■** O. *" Q. 


* ft 


*. 


*. 


*a 


* t 


*a 


2 


** 




ould 
SFIAM 
ould 
SFIAM 


T.4 

o </» 


^4 

O CO 


^4 

O (/I 


^4 

O l/> 


O V> 


■ok 

O «/» 


•o 

1 


i 


S 



8 


1 


u 




§ 


in 


u 


V 


ii 


3 


■o 


1 


3 

u 


m 

* 






f s 

o > 



6 

t» X O 

sr 

u >» 

■s * 

• ~ >. 

Mi 

1*1 

• • ST 

~3^ 

•III 

• b b 



as 

c. a 



u <a 

58 






^§ 



IS 



it 

1. 



Is 
gj 

"c 

•;? 

cTJ 

i* 

• < 

g</» 
*g 

if 



? 7. 



M 

i 2L 



* 28 
S 8^ 



28 

— L 



?- > 

.£ o 

IS i 

£ Si 

sis " 

■ — *■ ] 

C2< -q< 

Hi 

o 8 o 

•-— ♦» 3 o — a 



Si 



8j 



tl 



V 

M ■> 

8.8 



II 



M 

I s 

*3 

u 

— « 

11 

-si 



f o 

8." 

«►. >■ 



f, 



.2? 

!l 

*1 



ill 



' -2 ° 



> OJ O _ 
o. — — < 



82 
«2 



?2 

8.5 



ll m 



■ ° » 
Jil 

o I ■ 



2* 

o 

II 

o 

<A 5 

si 

a 
«i > 

*"c 

8" 

a — +> 

852 



-8 = 

_ to m 

1 1*. 

2 SS 



1-5 

< go) 

2 >. 



22 
■o o — 

HI 

i -2 

%x 

5 8.2 



>- a 
5 : 






M 

*- o 
£ 2 



w « 

tA o 

8.8. 



-? 

8. 

i> 
t> 

>»_ 

t! 

is 

a 

¥ «- 
>• ■ 

« 
ti >• 



II 

•> C V 

£ E > 

v S ti 



if j 

III 

Ml 



811 

Ii 



-i . „ 

«> t> • 

.|2gg 

i « 2« 

? 1 

■ S-22 

il-sic: 

r JC CD 

** "S " •- 

u * . 

v -a « £ i. 
c .2 £ « ti 

ti at B ° — 

ti « _. ^ 5 

»? Si 

?s;2r 



ll]tl 

•*ii4ci 

B | o o 



Nil ! 



i a 



11* 

o _ * i 

22?l2 ! 

— "ti a ti 

So - > a 
L. ~ tl U 

x « V f « 

| W ■ L. W 

3 

u ' 

OK 

— u 



f I I 



a 



n 
tl 

M 

III 



ii 

s 

d 5 



8 

— i. 

Q I*. 



3 2 3 

s s s 

o. a. o. 

5 5$ 

S S 6 



« • • 

****** 

oi « tn 
a a a 

■ ■ «l 



« 2 



is 



• 


<*.<*■•*■ 


,». 






g 

o 


2 5t-o- 


3 


*• 


i 


o o o 


O 


5 


V 
£ 


5 -°5 




o 


** 

a 
o> 


part 
part 
part 


b 

s. 


O 
O 


o 
o 


ID 

a 


igati 

ired 
.[SFI 


a 


& 














W 0) n 


o. 








■ 








•= •> " 


-5 


m 


E 


ana 


a 






E 


E T> c 


m 


C 


J J I 


1 


3 

b 


1 

b 


c 


•S |I 


i/> 


X 








■ 


a 




C 




W 


1 

(A 

B 


dope 
dope 
dope 


I 


E 
o 


s 
c 
o 


1! 

• 
« 


ssed 

cha 
tage 


> 


! 


6 
1 


£ 1 J 

TJ "O "O 


2 

■a 




2 

■o 


« 
b 

3 


addre 

total 
percen 


■ 


i 

•a 


** 
o 


ggl 


1 


1 


1 


o 


** it 
O £ o 


l 


1 



8 

8 « 
1 I. 



u a. 

r5 



88 
SSL 

c </> 



5 - 



II 

o. b 






c* ?' 






18 



c 

£ ■ 

u 

11 



?! 






S 

% 5 £ 



;: o 
I 



S-I| 

■fi c S-, S 

— a o >• 

U £ *9 

IS "8 

" g • ■ 
m > 

"St" 2 

i 2 

|§| 

Q. J2 ** 

« ° 

r£S" 

o ** 

8. a < 2 

« w _ ._ 

*j h- on n 
£ O 
** c> Tl 

><-»**_ 



t> > 



4-« *^ 






75 Sj 



i I IM 



») iu — 



IM CM (M 



<M CM CM 



2 2** ?~ s 2? •= 



►» C 

<*- a b 
< o > o 



8. " 

5 S 



o t, 



S£ 



■! 
M 

CO _. 

* S 

1 I 

ill 



ii 



Li 



"1 



o* ( 



II I 

£ O 

-.! - 



m >. 

_ • -o 

E -xj*: 

l/» w * B 



§c S3 
U _ o "fJ UJ 

2 1 S 1| 

c »^> c s 

• UNIX 



** o £ >>■ 

I It-" 

fTIUL 
6 ■«- ■ 

£ ■ I 
• i- S 



*.a 
ii 

I- 
-a 



*> a 

2*5 



£ -If! 



5j 

X ■ 

in a 
cm 6 



**i 

« ■ 

■O O 

IE 

£ ■ 
• 

El 

&? 

II 



Ii 



■o -- 5«£ 

3 «ir « S £ 

J5 ■ o Z E •* 

►- n c £ 

. <K U OS C ** C 
^ < •- — O O 

O CO V 

.25gg'S 

■ l^ O c ■- ° "- 

3 " Ep- O 

« * M — 

° B o E -c • 

■ s k u. fc ta 

$Z 1 «> o 

*< 1 tl > o 
H.SOall 

- go-5«* 

"IC.J . b 

£ c S > £r3 

< E b _ b 

co 5 x: " "Q — b 

o t; i e u o 

< — c c o 
— _ 3 t- >*■ 

u. ._ a: • 

«/»•■< • , 

• *- a -J. ~ 

■ o I R • g s 

° i o i s 



■? 8 



-4- 



mlifc 1 

^•_"-j;««£c» 
i^ ■ 5 * [ oo 






• £ 












\ 2 












* 








. 




c 


■ 


■ 


■ 


■ 


<0 


a 


■ 


s 


S 


« 


tl 


a i 
1 


1 


i 


1 


1 


i 


a 


a> 


a 


a 


at 




< 


< 


< 


< 


a 


5 2 


ti 


ti 


Li 

■ 


L. 
11 




8 5 


£ 


£ 


£ 


£ 


£ 


I J 


O 


a 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


a 


** 










7 
? 1 


i 


1 


1 


■o 


1 


^ ~ 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


g 1 




X 


X 


X 

u 


X 




a 


o 


o 


o 


o 


- u 




*■ 


*■ 


*■ 


*" 


< 

is 


J 


2 


J 


J 


2 


■o 


7> 


"O 


•o 


•o 


TJ 


1 


1 


1 


1 


i 


1 



tl 11 



"8 1 



Ji J! 



1 ? 



s u . c .5 £ 

llllli 

2 Z S • w " 

'fill! 

L, T* £ tl « 
o ** ■= 



i 



-iisil 

-- 1 1** 

** ■— b • L. 

3 - 3 ti a 
" ■ - s 8 

•£ **^ • . i 
IsHl « 

— O a «| Li -e 

* > € ■ 

£ ■V M ** £ 

V W 3 L *- w 

P X ■ I o X x 



58 
83 



1 2 

? 2r 

o 3 S 
a ti 

b€I 

u t >■ 
§°l 

-Is 

C H *£ 

* > 
-~ o 



2oj i- . 

. ^ ** o» 



5 I 

a Q. t/> 

• " 2 I 

Li U o 

■"■ tl 

le.i 

£ b ■ ti 

• c o "8 

to — »- • 



O _ 

>■ CD 

X\ 

y ° 

£ c 
i,2 



S 2 
-J 

SI 



u <- Z 

8g§ 

a M 






i t* si 



< a 



o _, 

8? 



~Z o 



l. a 






C V T3 

£"2 s 

a w E 
U 

1 € 2 

^ 9 ti 



M "- — 



■- II 

11 — 

TJ ^3 






W £ — • o w 






l/l II 

C B 



*• I o Z. 

M *♦ u 

III I 



*5 

• 



n - 



5 - * 



>■ o 

— a 

I - 

k ti 

<- u 



u 

Hi 

UJ v> 



t52 

■ "8 

ti » 

ih 



n 



lis 



CM <M 



i 



c 2 



a »- 

a 3 w 

- rvi — 

?«; E 

- s 1 

"i a 

n l 

Is I 

II I 

-I I 

I! I 

at ♦< U 






£ ° — 



8 if 

U & 

*»— • 

II = 



a X » — 

£ 2 O) H 

u C O) a 

Si^^SJ 

a "O >> ■ 



2 .Jt: 

|g £ 

"ai"-- 

« 2 — ti 
a £ a £ 

■B II • 

tl 

•it 



I? 



xS 



£ <- C 

Ol tl tl — 



L £:8 

w O L. 

5?S^ 

Si a 

8 gl a 



o ** -* 

S u fc a 

V o ~ at 

I.-.5 






lj! 



I 

3 = 



8£ £££££££ £££££££ ss 

a. a. o. o. a. a. o. o. a. a. o_ a. o. a. a. a. a. a. 

|| || I || I! |i II 1| 5 || 

(/»</> (AC/) (A (/)(/> (/»(/> CO 00 (/></» CO (/> (A (A (/) 

cc c c c c c cc cc EG c c c c c 

coa mm (o a a a a an as c<o © <a m 

CkCL o. a. a. o. a. o. o. a. a. o. o. a. a. a. a. o. 

(.(_ (-(- *- L. L. UU t_ L. (_(. L. L. (_ L. c 

4> 4i tf(V a» a> a» a» a> a> a> a> a> a> a> a> * a> 

MM (AM M MM MM MM MM MM M M M 

(on a a a (flco am mm a a a a c a a 

XX XX X XX XX XX XX XX X X X 

o 4, t> a» v *> a) 4i oj a> a* «i«i a> *» a> a* «i 

.£.*= fi fi -C -C -C fi fi ff .C.C £f £ £ £ 

WW W 4-» ** WW W *rf 4-. 4-. WW WW W W W 

OO CO O OO OO O O OO OO O O O 

(.(- U(- (- (-(- (_ L. (.(. (_ (_ (.(. (_ (_ (_ 

lliiililllliiill 8. 8. 

MM MM M MM MM MM MM MM M M M 

a (o a m m mm <qcq mm a a am c c c 

v i i» dl (v vv 4> v 1> a> a> 4» wv a! 4> w 

ww ww w ww ww ww ww ww w w w 

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 

O O O O O oo OO OO oooo o o o 

■OTJ TJ TJ 13 T3 *© TJ "O TJ "D T5TS TJ TJ TJ T3 T3 

co to co co (0 (0(0 con (0*0 cos oco m m m 

&%&&&&£&&%&&&&&& % JS 

TJ "O TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ TJ 

33 33 3 11111138 33 3 11 

OO OO O OO OO OO OO OO o o o 



i8 
IS 



a 
I 

v 

It 



» 8. 



Ill 



-o a 
— o 

X — 



3 fc 



3 I 



V 
o . 

*■ ■ 

-•I 

3g I 



L 

Is 

** (V 

4-J 

?1 



2 1 



I 1 



(o 8. 

O) (0 

u 

85 

u 

u 

> « 

a 

-8 



i I 






s a 

O 13 

m 

g £ 

m 

l g 

I 1 



W 1. 7 

5 »5 









2 a. 



1 5 4 

a. > a 



o > 

0! 

?9 



o 5 

s 1 

1 

£ 
- 5 ; 



u 

8 
« 

• g 

it* 

..8. 



1 

o ti 

if 



■ H — 



1 !! 

o j 

i i 



I % 



I i 



> — 

a. > 



E 



I J 



s *• • 

** .2 9 5 

«) • _ 

s c t-£ 

** ■■ • TI 

• 8.S| 
w >> 

3 V O — 

«> a 

- S 8i 

• »5 

?! 2 

Sill 

s ■ 



3 *• — 

1 1 i 1 

o" « I 

■ c ? 

"li'f 

■now 

« ■ — __ 

hi: 

511- 



"8 



s3 



8-1 
IS 



3>: 



ti 



8§ 

8«. 

il 

■ 
Ii 



i 

M CT) 

I ii 

I 3 S 

„ i ■ 
" ™ 
■--8 

8-1 

j ■ s 
S|| 

I ? O 

i i ■ 

Ih 

• > 

r 2| 



TJ L « 






if S 



fii 



ii 



t, a g s • tf s 



i = 



■ 

33 > 

y ot o 



co 4f ^^ 



i * 1 8 9 

*i:s? 

> M 5 ■ 

Mill 

ex 

3 



1 1 



I 






21 



si 



« fffi 

ill" 

- i-3 



I I ; 

E " 

■a ■ g 

1 1 1 

* I 

■o * 

1 « 



8. » 

s ■ 

X 2 

I 1 



8- 


8- 


i_ 


L. 


& 


& 


s 


z 



1 1 



— £ ■ 

p 3 « 
8 - 

*V> 2 



g* 



sis 

Oka 
-ll 

*o" 

o O u 

i- *■ •> 

• > 
j: O 
o >.x 

Mi 

87 o 

• n 
11 

a ^! 

■O O 

o*" 

•28 

« 3 w 

|is 

is! 



fx:8 



S L. -C 

N O U 



</>■$£ 



n 



Ssl i 



5 8. 



S 8,3 

• 1 


0- ■ u 


« ■ 


« "- j: 


■ U • 


Sf* 




"til 


! *=i 


•> • 



1 I 

w >- 

O 

u 

o 

„ B 

S £ 

* 1 



S 2 

~~ a. 

i 



is 



g- 

CO 

Ss 

•3 



I" 

si 



a *•» 

i 



.c — 

+> X 

a t* 



a 5. 

£* 
"ft 



IS 

10 

e 



o> > 



SS 
.8 



gg 

— u 



S Q.- 

O 

> a a 



1 " 5. 



8-e ° ° 



c o> w o 

s $ 
s ??• 

3 — 1 J 
■ U Ifl ■ 

SS.S.2 



9 V 

£2 

•- °> 
«■ o 

c Q- 

a 

8" 

-g 

8 
I 



w « 

o O r«j 

"o •— 00 
&. a (M 



Sis i 

> 

•J a. 

'?! 

a u. 

is- 



■ ■ o 

III : 
ill 

00c 

•I* 

. x s 

I c • 



a 

o* 

u 

u 

c5 

a > 
</> o 

I* 

1 

(A 

18 



°-8. 

o >- 

» > s 

fi!i 

j 8 2 

5 o E 

I 

III 

o ^ • 

c 8 « 

u • 
v c 

•- ° y 

3 • * c 

Ql u ^ c 

95 1£ 



O w o 



O E w 
ill. 

afj 

■ o ■ — 

q. o. j* 

u"8 u. 

• *i| 

*^ ♦* 3 
in ■ in ■ 

«:•• 

■ o * "■ 

£-°g 

oJSS 

iif! 

* ~ n 

2 *-a 

°r - c 

- 8.. g 



S 5 



2 5 

! I 



ii | 1 



st 52 2 
i° Si J 



3 o >^ c 

V 41 V I 

h ; 1 

<•- «. > e 

gj |S I 

h .i 1 
1 



I 5 



» a P 



5 -ii 
■ u 

O - O £> 

II 3 






§ J 

g g 



1 1 1 



g 3 



& i i 



s g 



* 


"8 


u 


L. 


u 


L. 


3 


.-8 


| 


i 


i 


i 


u 


u 


u 


J! 


JB 


JS 


TJ 


■o 


■D 


1 


1 


1 



1 1 1 



E E 
C C 



1! 1 

» «i 
« 41 



*1 

o o 






n 



— at 



1| 
o — 

M 

> 

• h 
J" 



**- »*; 



! *:i 



ass 

■ 

s§2 

— B 

a — 



3 w -* 

£|2 



o 
<- l-l . 

■ s 
l| 2 

■ o 
— .c 
■ c P 
> 6 >- 

m 6 o 

I- 0>«D 



IS? 



II l 



8*. 

".,8. 



i 3 






sl 



u — ' 

2i 



h ii: ii i 



> — ** 

2 3 g 

a. ■ v) — 



2S 



.2 ■ * 

I til 

. £ « 

i-I 



Is ^s 

£2 «- o 

•c2-s 
£ Is 

. Js? 



53 8 

4> a ■ a 

8."- 1 

«-• — ^ 

« • ii- 






15 

£ CO 

S ' 
*•> c 



is 



4> <- 









u (, 
|^ 

E"8B 

Is 
■S5 



o «> 



e> a 



» — i. — 



.i *■ »> 
S2 5 

OB Q 

« • ■ 



Ii 



■ 

|i 
■ « 



?8g 

• u I 

— " • 



• 3 J 



t! 5. 



ja5 | 

* « i pi 



ill 



o •> -g 

>- o> c 
: a • 






.5' 



i s =l i si 



8-gSS 

(A S U 

a a a 

ss S 8 

** »j ^ .? 



3 — 



hi] 

fe JSi 

* Hi 

3 o J J - 

■S ° — 

o - ■ -c . 

U UJ— 8 

a .c w 

fc**»ffg 

|s«5|s 

47 in — • u. 
.- a « c <- w 
o. x I — »- w 



8 

* I? 

(A .^- 
<0 0) to 

i ll 

! it 

C9 — 

- ^i| 

S I" 



E H 41 C 

i. — £ 5 

au *■ — 

-o 4> <. ^ 

-co; 

u 2>r^ 



i: 



g — u — 
- a. u. 

2 8 < " 



£•2 o * 

Si 



l h 

5 «, " 



— o 

1 22 

o 2d 

« o| 



I I 



.si: 

t 3 . 

JJ B » 41 

O X li 4) 

•»- »- a. * 
o o 

c V w 

oc«« 

I; 1 - 3 

>. • o I 
• +. _ o 

° i * >. 
b * 4. 8 *s 



O I" r 



41 41 
JC £ 

c c 

a a 

I £ 



a. • o i- ■ 



s • 

• - 01 

2 | 

I i 



■ «» a. • I JJ. tt 

4. 8 «. * 






t z 



ii 



S ■= 3 



I 9 

3 U 



O •- — 



Z. 41 



■ c .: 



5125 



§ I 



I "8 



I i 3 



1 4,2 1 

2. ||l 
bl| j 

w ^ 

2^2 |8 h. ,- 

— o r •- o o 

I 1 !g S 8 






2«-t8 . 

Mil 

I S 2 2 2 



! ! 



g "8 * 



111 



3 ? ? ? 1 

a a * o o 



II 



s . 

8 g 



o & 

W V) 



w >> 

I § 

g 9 

2 I 

£ s 



•I U u. 



3 "o 
i U 



*g 

2g 



o J: 

** u 

8 * 

f I 



H 



U ►- «J 



I- g 

— < o 

1? ■ 



Is 

u 

si 

— tl 

it 

if 



J 

8 8 



* ? 

■ 



• a 

■5 „_ 



o 8 *: 



t 8 i 



I II 



ll 



! is 

X o 

8 • *• 

! I! 



5* 

5 v> 




- £ ? 



8 ? 

^ e 

41 



il 3 I 



— c 

si 

2o 



2 g 






S 1 

C i ° 

| Is 

— u o 
a aw 

5 a* 
1 i* 

1 .1 

o w £ 



_T a 



I ! § 



! 2s 



2 §- '§■£ 

c — o a 



3 < a 5 

m <o k. n 
<\j rj pj rj 



1 || 

a. x a 

a e 

a 

a •> 

JJ i 

3 

O 

o — 

no rvj 



18 a 

1 2 

| I 

i • 



I I 

a 

I = 

M 

> 

Z >!, 

q. s5 
•* ■• 

^ is 

- ^a 

I s» 
§ -1 

* ~ £ a 

-Ir • 

iSli 

< — a 

w a 3 

L k t- "O 

a. ■«. i o 

< In • 



g s 



f 2 



— « 
3 5 



gill 



X "8 "8 



i 1 I I 



1 c e c c 



2 


"8 


* 


1 


s 




09 


a 


« 


tfj 






u 


ul 


u> 




at 


01 


«■ 


01 


2 

■o 






(_ 




3 

a 


1 


1 


1 


1 


o 


*-* 

o 


*-> 

o 


o 



8- 8 


8 






8 8 


8 


g g 


S 



"8 Y 



° z 



J 1 

u ■ 



1 5 



■£ c 



51 I 



-1 
S sfi 

tit 



2 </> ° 

> -or ~ . a 



?S 3 

._ o -.c 

3° 5 

5o;S 



9 ^ 

si 



I ■ « o 



I I'll 

■ 



52 

> • 

o • 

•* > 

K 

I. o 

.14. O — «- 



1**1 

lilt 



< (J W> w 

8 



* 8 
$ 1 

I i 

X i 



!i 



Q- u 
1/1 3 

M —J 



I J 



in <o 



(O fO Kl 



fl 

a a. 

*! 

3"5 



n 5> 



15 |ii 

r 



2 

li 



.8 



§ 1 



c5 ? 



5 -° 



3 O o 

Is i 



oc a ui wt 



I 






3 • | 

■c ■ 

ill 



»» «E >»■ 5 



I I 



•i 4- • o 



i ! I 



fM l-J <M IM 



i s 



K> Kl ft 






*»g 

ill 



a — 
M C 

| 

a 
g 

g 

— o 

i 1 

1 I 



3 -I 

U tl 

> 

2«S 

111 

i • • 



in 

■ < °- 

giro 

O 4ft ** 



s 

I 

« 

i 

8 

■ 
g 

g 

! 

i i 

tft u 

• ? 

I I 



e i 



K( ■* O 



r-1 K1 W 



11 


il 


*? 


§3 


<i 


it 


° . 


"1 



3 i- 

5 

c 

1 

m 

■ 
I 

I 




vhli 

I « S .2 8 g 

!si.: 8 i i 

I Mi! 5 £ 



i 1 1 



g&ggg-" J * * 

« J C ,z w m in <n 

t'»Jli in «i n 

!«iU i i i 

irSlas a s s 

i~ a a o I « x at a: 



I S 





8- 


s- 


ft 


1- 

i 


1 


I 


o 



•8 1! 



ft 


ft 


ft 






c 


ft 


ft 


ft 


s 


s 


s 



fa 



I u 

(A 8 C m 

6 



S i 



1* 



Ik 
Ml 

L. I. 
- V H 






3 si 

o • « 

■ssu 

111 



o s 

o a — 



If 1 

8 a i. 



»- K «/» 



1 i 

ii 

a .2 

* I 

g = 

8 ' 

i | 

u u 

2 ? 

9 5 

ft 8. 

3 a. u 

■** 8- 



3 I 



! 



in 

i 

o 


s 
ft 


1 

1/5 


1 


. 


s 




*l 


> 
a 


" 


1 


£ 






o 


o 


B 

X 



J* 

H 

f •- 

-s 

'I 

h 



28 



I 8 I 






see 

a a a 

I s s 



si 

• a 
o 8 



II o g 

S 8*_ S 

|I-S | 

2.SS 1 

a. wi • 

X o 8 ui < 

ISlt I 

?- ?£ e 

22*3 o 

g S • * 

Pell * 

I «r S 

c ■ a 

sr >• 



"8 ^-5 



a. ■ « 

. s 

i2K 


Is 


*5S 


£ — 

a 


low 


1 



.if* 

■ 

Mi! 

EfSf 

O tt £ — 



111 u • — 



a 


a 


L. 


c 


i 


& 


■ 

c 


s 



I 3 



ii t - 

« 3 > u 
— g O o> u 

Cu't 

— O. •_ 

» «'" 

» t> 2 < 

V •> •* — t 

8— u. o 
I. ? * M ^ 

Jo* ;l 

Mas 

■o • £ a 

[ .* «* * 

01 . *. S 

* «• ■«: • 

Mils I 

r » > «-» 



[ 

■ ■ — *» — < _ 

2 8 



5 £ 

6 " 

(A •«• 

3 fi 



55 



"s 

a 
g" 

I! 

O 0) 
S) 



"S 



S2 



a 



2 S 

a s 

1 1 






as 



t- u 



3 2 



{ 



■£«" a 

a- as 

— u u 0» 

9-° s 

O O..C — 

> ? . o 
C H £ ** 

£ 0S8 
1. £ « 

« «"0*o, 

S g |l 

coo 
« — a 

£ " ~ 



h 



ill? 

5 I 

•*- — c SP 
og -S 

O. O at 

t, £ o O 

2 « a — 
— c <- K"j 

= 5 o- a •- 



« fe .2 -. -S 
S " i - 3 

o5"g££ 

t> S t> ■ " 

* — 5 — 

*< -o .- <n c 

So £. 

Sv C ^ ~ 
u> in 

s s s ^ I 

D o « c 

"szsa 

£ i a 

— "- S • -c 
« •» t o.« 

St)— a 

_ •* w •- — 1« 

s ..>!» 

« • ■ „ 

« g 2 « si 

1 1 i- - 1 .. 

SiHii 

-1°. as 

-£*! ? 

■ S ' M tf 1 

ri!-sl5. 



a -o 

hi j* 

L£5^ 

O ] • • 

c . c oc » 

"■n£ O — jC 

a> s "s >■ 

S S e ** w 

" > 5 • 8 

L. O I. u 

:i 



a ■ ■ o o 

O ll££ 

a 

« >• SB 

• « 9 

5 3 

w> o 

a u 



w w o 

c c 



si=h 

<- O „ o 

"•» 11 ««l o 
« > *" f ^ 

I j«- >, 5 

in a J5 

llllil 

* «j 6 ^~ ^ — 
■C « — — 3 



% s §^«" a 
a I e- S 

— L. « <»- D ■ 
CO -^ 5 — 

■n o v jz uj 

5 >■!■; »3 

S« C I ? 5* 

8.0 8 " « So 

6 I <-> - ^ 

^liigi 

a c • «• ° — 

«« J SS « 

I £ *!|il 

■ c ** •" ■ i 

s|-5 St 

*' ■-• *' ^ ^ 

£ 5 u | j a S. 
>- 5 — jz ■ b ■ 
I ^ ■ *• c 



o- «■&" • « 

x 5 - ^; 9 

5 * w «> 

53-a 2* 2 

8 o* ? lf8 , 

_ l e c £ — 2 

•i.s]i,r * 
li 1 !! 1 ! § 
ilf!! 11 i 

Il|f.ll I 

Uf|j|i i 



? .2 



I 



I 



« " " 2 i 

8*c « 

•> — " .c «> 
• «<" o »- 

I - ."8- 



c 5 w» S 



V „ 






> c 



* s • ° « *• 

0- c * « w 

S ■£ *s • 
— C * ■ 
~ a 3 -ii S 

ill 

V ■ M 

« ■o .r « t 



<<i B o 

«>£ 

« *■ >■ 

■ — ** 



i — v 

. *• t 

■ u ■ 

■ u — 



u. O X 



3 

O _ (III 

"5 m " "• S 

5-= 5 • 

■^ ** 2* ui 




c 3 ti k 

.e u. f — 

U (| <A Ui 

* 5 "D 

<o — u f * 

<a > S u u « 

9 L <•- 9 -c 



J! 



|§5 g^ 2r § 



* •- -n 

N 1 « 




I 






a o at 

8 ■ < 

«s- 

-eg 

■ « c 

■ U Q 

« w 

< o. s 

"si 

— — c 

_. > — 

*?: 

«:i 

s • 

« — 

*\& 



i*i 



• ° - 
8- 

l 3 *JJS 

• w x a £ c 



5 s^S 



- S Si 



** ■ ■ ' 



_ ° ™ 

[una 



I 



1250 Old Bayshore, Burhngame, California 94010 ' 415.348.8818 ■ Fax 415.343.8838 

'hotels ^Sresorts 



SAN MATEO COUNTY HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION 
BURLINGAME HOTEL COUNCIL 



PRESENTATION 
San Francisco Airport Commission 

Wednesday, September 2, 1992 

7:30 PM 

Airport Hilton 

Terrace Ballroom 



-2- 

Good evening! 

My name is Dan McHale, I am here this evening representing the 
San Mateo County Hotel & Restaurant Association as well as the 
Burlingame Hotel Council. 

San Francisco International Airport over the years has spawned a 
Two Hundred Million Dollar plus per year Airport Hotel industry. 
Currently over 9,000 first class hotel rooms are clustered around the 
Airport providing jobs to over 5,000 full time employees. 

As an industry that is dependent upon SFO maintaining its 
position as the gateway to the Pacific Rim, we are supportive of the 
Airport's planned expansion and a master plan that affectively 
addresses noise and ground transportation concerns. 

This evening you will hear from local citizens concerned about 
living in close proximity to SFO. One of the major benefits for 
neighboring cities such as Burlingame is the occupancy tax generated 
by hotels that currently makes up 5 Million Dollars of Burlingame's 29 
Million Dollar annual budget. 



-3- 



County wide in 1991 airport hotels generated in excess of 15 
Million Dollars in occupancy tax all of which went to augment local 
communities general funds. 

At a previous public hearing, representatives of our industry 
raised our concern at the prospect of hotel courtesy vehicles being 
excluded from the terminal roadways after the opening of the proposed 
west of bayshore Ground Transportation Center. 

We have two primary concerns: 

1) Airport properties, in addition to the usual services and 
amenities hotels are known for, SELL CONVENIENCE. 

If after collecting luggage, passengers have to board some 
form of people mover in order to reach the Ground 
Transportation Center, the level of convenience will be 
severely compromised. 

2) San Mateo County hotels currently spend in excess of 6 
Million Dollars per year providing complimentary airport 
shuttle service for hotel guests. An estimated 3 million 
passengers are transported annually to and from the 
airport's terminals by hotel shuttles. 

• If the service is not convenient it will not be used. 

• If the service is not used more than likely it will be 
discontinued. 



We request the opportunity to work with Airport staff so that a 
convenient and acceptable airport hotel shuttle service may be 
maintained. 

This would not only satisfy our business concerns but serve to 
avoid the prospect of this substantial segment of SFO's passenger 
traffic further compounding congestion on Highway 101 as a result of 
moving from complimentary airport hotel shuttles to single passenger 
vehicles such as taxi cabs. 

Thank you for the consideration given our concerns. As an 
industry we look forward to working with you. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 



OCT 3 1992 

SAN FRANCIS' 3 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 
MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

September 15, 1992 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

RESOLUTION 

NUMBER PAGE 



:alendar 

SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 
B. 




CALL TO ORDER 
ROLL CALL: 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Special meeting of 

August 11 , 1992 92-0236 4 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 5 

E. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1. Election of Officers 5 

F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 5 

G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Host Food/Beverage Lease: Approve 

Facility Package No. 5 Sublease 92-0237 5 

3. $305-M1 1 1 ion Refunding Bond 

Issues 92-0238 5 

4. Selection of Firms for Refunding 

Short List 92-0239 5 

5. Award Public Pay Telephone 

Agreement 92-0240 6 

6. Award Contract 1896B-Field Lighting 

Raceway System - Phase II 92-0241 6 



7. Authorize Pre-Proposal Conf. - 

Door-to-Door Shuttle Service 92-0242 6 

8. Authorize Pre-Bid Conference - 

Foreign Currency Exchange Lease 92-0243 6 

9. Extend Lease for Plot 1H to UAL 92-0244 6 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

10. Rescind Two-Year Option for North 

Terminal Gate 64 Newsstand Lease 92-0245 7 

11. Authorize Pre-RFP Conf. - Operator- 
Assisted Long Distance Service 

from Public Payphones 92-0246 7 

12. Renew Airport Information Booth 

Agreement 92-0247 7 

13. Mod. & Extend P.S.C. - Readicare- 

California 92-0248 7 

14. Award Contract 2394 - Transformer 
Replacement - Station BQ 92-0249 

15. Bid Call - Contract 3017: Interna' 1 
Terminal F.I.S. Offices - Carpet 

Replacement & Painting 92-0250 7 

16. The Parry Contract 92-0251 8 

17. Declaration of Emergency - Contract 
3200 - Emergency Environmental 

Services at Road 9 & Road 18 92-0252 8 

18. Rental Credit - Hilton Hotel 92-0253 8 

19. Approval of Claims Settlement 92-0254 8 

20. Travel/Training 92-0255 8 

21. Ratify Personnel Actions 92-0256 8 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Contract No. 3143 
Airfield Access Control 

Minutes, September 15, 1992, Page 2 



j. CORRESPONDENCE: 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 



Pend. Lit. with FAA; Potential 

Litigation; Personnel Matters 9 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 9 



Minutes, September 15, 1992. Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

September 15, 1992 

A court report's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
James K. Ho 
Marie K. Broods 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of August 11, 1992 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0236 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss pending litigation with the 
FAA, Section 54956.9(h)(1) to discuss potential litigation, and Section 
54957 to discuss personnel matters. 

The meeting was recessed at 9:02 AM and reconvened at 9:27 AM. 



Minutes, September 15. 1992, Page 4 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0235 regarding the settlement of 
litigation entitled Marques v CCSF in 
the amount of $10,000 at the closed 
session of August 11, 1992. 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

Item no. 1 was put over. 

1. Election of Officers 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos. 2 through 9 were adopted unanimously. 

2. Host Food and Beverage Lease: 

Request for Approval of Facility Package No. 5 Sublease 



No. 92-0237 



Resolution approving Host Food and 
Beverage sublease of the Fog Bank Bar 
and La Strada Bar to Sanchez Business, 
Inc. dba Casa Sanchez. 



$305 Million Refunding Bond Issues 
No. 92-0238 



Resolution authorizing the sale of 
second series refunding bonds. 



Minutes, September 15, 1992, Page 5 



Selection of Firms for Refunding Short List 

No. 92-0239 Selection of firms qualified to bid on 

forward refunding bonds. 



Award of Agreement - Public Pay Telephone Agreement 

No. 92-0240 Resolution awarding Public Pay 

Telephone Agreement to Pacific Bell 



Award of Airport Contract No. 1896B 
Field Lighting Raceway System - Phase II 

No. 92-0241 Resolution awarding Contract 1896B to 

Rosendin Electric in the amount of 
$4,758,863. 



7. Authorization to Conduct Pre-Proposal Conference 
Door-to-Door Shuttle Service Agreement 

No. 92-0242 Resolution authorizing staff to conduct 

a pre-proposal conference for two Door- 
to-Door Shuttle Service Agreements. 



Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference 
Foreign Currency Exchange Lease 

No. 92-0243 Resolution authorizing staff to 

conduct a pre-bid conference for a 
Foreign Currency Exchange Lease. 



Extension of Lease for Plot 1H to United Air Lines, Inc. 

No. 92-0244 Resolution extending the term for 

Lease No. 92-0169 to United Air Lines 
until January 31 , 1993. 



Minutes, September 15, 1992, Page 6 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 10 through 21 were adopted unanimously. 

10. Rescind Two-Year Option for Lease of North Terminal, Gate 64 Newsstand 

No. 92-0245 Resolution rescinding two-year option 

with SFO News/Western Motives for 
North Terminal Gate 64 Newsstand lease. 



1 1 . Authorization to Conduct Pre-RFP Conference: Operator-Assisted Long 
Distance Service from Public Payphones Agreement 

No. 92-0246 

12. Renewal of the Airport Information Booth Agreement 

No. 92-0247 Resolution recommending the renewal of 

the Agreement with Polaris Research 
and Development for the operation of 
the Airport Information Booth Program. 



13. Modification and Extension of a Professional Services Contract 

No. 92-0248 Mod. to add $15,000 and Extend time of 

the current contract with ReadiCare- 
California Industrial Medical Clinic, 
the Airport's Medical Examiner. 



14. Award of Contract No. 2394 

Transformer Replacement - Station BQ 

No. 92-0249 Resolution awarding Contract 2394 to 

Millard Tong Construction in the 
amount of $83,000. 



15. Bid Call - Contact No. 3017 

International Terminal F.I.S. Offices Carpet Replacement and Painting 

No. 92-0250 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract 3017 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bid when ready. 

Minutes, September 15, 1992, Page 7 



The Parry Contract 

No. 92-0251 Contract for The Parry Co. to produce 

four noise impact area contours for the 
Quarterly Report & use at at the 
Roundtable. Contract also provides for 
Parry Co. representatives to appear & 
substantiate the noise contours-$30,000 



17. Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3200 

Emergency Environmental Services at Road 9 & Road 18 

No. 92-0252 Resolution ratifying the Commission 

President's action in declaring an 
emergency & directing the Director to 
effect the necessary repairs. 



18. Rental Credit: Hilton Hotel 

No. 92-0253 Authorize rental credit to Hilton Hotel 

in an amount not to exceed $10,000. 



19. Approval of Claims Settlement 

No. 92-0254 Resolution to approve settlement of 

claims not exceeding $5,000 for the 
period April 1992 to June 1992. Total 
Claims: $19,542.62. 



20. Travel/Training for Fiscal Year 1992/93 
No. 92-0255 



21 . Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No 92-0256 Resolution, in accordance with require- 

ments of SF City Charter Section 3.501, 
ratifying & approving certain personnel 
actions taken by the Airport Director. 



Minutes, September 15, 1992, Page 8 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



CLOSED SESSION: 



The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss pending litigation with the 
FAA, Section 54956.9(h)(1) to discuss potential litigation, and Section 
54957 to discuss personnel matters. 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:40 A.M. to go into closed session. 

)/ /' +r ' 

Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 

v. 



Minutes, September 15, 1992. Page 9 



FRED A. RODRIGUEZ 

ANDREW M. GOLD 

STEIN LUBIN & LERNER 

600 Montgomery Street, 14th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 981-0550 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CORONAR GROUP, a California general 

partnership 



SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



CORONAR 
general 


GROUP, a California ) 
Partnership, ) 




Plaintiff, ) 


ROBERT C. SANCHEZ, SANCHEZ ) 
BUSINESS, INC. dba CASA ) 
SANCHEZ and/ or SANCHEZ ) 
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, and DOES ) 
1 through 10, inclusive, ) 




Defendants. j 



No. 

COMPLAINT FOR USURPA- 
TION OF PARTNERSHIP 
OPPORTUNITY, BREACH OF 
FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND 
UNFAIR COMPETITION 



Plaintiff Coronar Group, a California general 
partnership, alleges: 

The Parties 

1. Plaintiff Coronar Group, a California general 
partnership ("Coronar") is, and at all times mentioned herein 
was, a general partnership organized and existing under the laws 
of the State of California, with its principal place of business 
in the City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiff has filed a 
Fictitious Business Name Statement as reguired by the California 
Business & Professions Code. 



2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that defendant Robert Sanchez ("Sanchez") is an 
individual residing in the City and County of San Francisco. 

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that defendant Sanchez Business, Inc. is, and at all 
times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing 
under the laws of the State of California with its principal 
place of business in the City and County of San Francisco. 

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that Sanchez Business, Inc. does business as, or is also 
known as Sanchez Business Enterprise or Casa Sanchez. 

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that Sanchez Business, Inc. is a family-owned business. 
Coronar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 
Sanchez Business, Inc. operates Casa Sanchez. Coronar is 
informed and believes and thereon alleges that Sanchez owns a 
25% interest in Sanchez Business, Inc. and is President and CEO 
of Sanchez Business, Inc. (For the purposes of this Complaint, 
Sanchez Business, Inc., Sanchez Business Enterprise and Casa 
Sanchez will be collectively referred to as Casa Sanchez) . 

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and 
capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, 
inclusive, and therefore sues those defendants by such 
fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege 
their true names and capacities when the same have been 
ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is 
responsible in some manner for the cause herein alleged and that 



plaintiff's injuries and damage herein alleged were proximately 
caused by their conduct. 

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that at all times mentioned herein each of the 
defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining 
defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, was acting 
within the scope of said agency and employment, and ratified the 
acts of each of the remaining defendants. 

General Allegations Applicable to all Causes of Action 

8. Coronar was formed on or about February 1, 1991. 
A true and correct copy of the Coronar Group General Partnership 
Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated 
herein by reference as though set forth in full. 

9. Under the General Partnership Agreement, the 
general partners of Coronar are Carlos A. Quiroz, Sanchez, 
Ramiro Castro, and Isaac M. Mejia. 

10. Under the General Partnership Agreement, the 
purpose of the partnership is to: 

"Own, develop, manage, lease, operate, and 
in any respect deal in and with sale of food 
and beverages through and without 
limitation, the ownership and/or operations 
of restaurants and bars, cafeterias, 
catering services, and other food and 
beverage establishments. The Partnership 
may engage in any lawful activities incident 
to carrying on partnership business." 

11. Coronar is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that Host International, Inc. ("Host"), a subsidiary of 
Marriott Corporation, holds the master lease for all of the 
concession operations at the San Francisco International 
Airport. 



12. Coronar is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that in or about early 1992, Host began to reguest 
proposals to sublease a number of the concession operations at 
San Francisco International Airport. 

13. In or about April, 1992, Coronar submitted a 
proposal to sublease from Host the Carousel Shop at the San 
Francisco International Airport. 

14. Coronar 's proposal for the sublease of the 
Carousel Shop was declined. However, at a debriefing of 
Coronar 's proposal conducted by representatives of Host, the 
partners of Coronar were advised that they had a unigue 
management and operation structure that would make them a 
desirable candidate for one of the subseguent, and larger, 
concession operations. The representatives of Host also gave 
Coronar information and advise concerning the preparation of 
subseguent proposals, which information and advise would enhance 
the likelihood of Coronar successfully obtaining approval for a 
substantial airport concession sublease. 

15. Subseguent to that meeting, Coronar received a 
reguest for proposals for a sublease to operate La Strada and 
The Fog Bank Bar at San Francisco International Airport. 

16. The partnership met to discuss whether or not to 
submit a proposal for La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar. The 
partners agreed not to submit a proposal for La Strada and The 
Fog Bank Bar, but rather to submit a proposal for one of the 
three largest concession operations, proposals for which had not 

yet been solicited. 

17. In addition, Coronar is informed and believes and 



thereon alleges that Host and the San Francisco International 
Airport Commission have determined that no individual or 
organization will be awarded more than one of the available 
subleases from Host. 

18. Thus, one of the primary reasons why Coronar 
chose not to submit a proposal on La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar 
was that it did not want to preclude itself from consideration 
for one of the larger and more lucrative Host subleases. 

19. Coronar is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that Sanchez, even while voting against Coronar pursuing 
the La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar proposal, harbored a secret 
intent to pursue the La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar proposal on 
his own through Casa Sanchez . 

20. Thereafter Sanchez, on behalf of himself and Casa 
Sanchez, prepared and submitted a proposal to Host for La Strada 
and The Fog Bank Bar. 

21. Coronar is informed and believes, and thereon 
alleges, that Sanchez and Casa Sanchez benefitted from and 
relied upon the knowledge, experience and confidential 
information obtained by Coronar in preparing their proposal for 
La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar. 

22. On August 28, 1992, Sanchez was advised by 
Marriott Corporation that Casa Sanchez had been selected to 
operate La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar. Said selection was made 
subject only to the approval of the San Francisco Airports 

Commission. 

23. Coronar is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that Host's selection of Casa Sanchez to operate La 



Strada and The Fog Bank Bar will preclude Coronar from obtaining 
one of the remaining subleases at the San Francisco 
International Airport. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Usurpation of Partnership Opportunity 

Against Robert C. Sanchez) 

24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 
through 23 as though fully set forth herein. 

25. Coronar is, and at all times herein mentioned 
was, financially able to undertake the operation of La Strada 
and The Fog Bank Bar. 

26. The operation of La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar 
is, by its nature, in the line of Coronar 's partnership business 
and would be of practical advantage to Coronar. 

27. The operation of La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar 
is an opportunity in which Coronar would have an interest or 
reasonable expectancy of an interest. 

28. By embracing the opportunity for himself, the 
self-interest of Sanchez has been brought into conflict with 
that of Coronar. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

Against Robert C. Sanchez) 

29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 
through 28 as though fully set forth herein. 

30. As a general partner of Coronar, Sanchez owes, 
and owed, a fiduciary duty to Coronar. 

31. Sanchez wilfully, intentionally and maliciously 



breached his fiduciary duty to the partnership by seizing for 
himself an opportunity which was developed by the partnership, 
and from which the partnership reasonably expected to benefit. 
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Unfair Competition Against Robert C. Sanchez 

and Sanchez Business Inc. dba Sanchez 

Business Enterprise and Casa Sanchez, Inc.) 

32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 
through 31 above as though fully set forth herein. 

33. Defendant Sanchez, as a partner in Coronar, was 
intimately involved in the preparation of Coronar 's proposal for 
the sublease of the Carousel Shop at San Francisco International 
Airport. 

34. Defendant Sanchez, as a partner in Coronar, 
attended the debriefing of the Carousel proposal conducted by 
representatives of Host. 

35. Defendant Sanchez misappropriated proprietary 
information of Coronar as well as information acquired from Host 
through his capacity as a partner in Coronar. 

36. Defendant Sanchez utilized the knowledge he had 
acquired and information he had obtained through his 
participation in the Coronar proposal for the Carousel sublease 
to his advantage in preparing the La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar 

proposal. 

37. Coronar is informed and believes and thereon 
alleges that Casa Sanchez, knowing that Sanchez had obtained 
knowledge and information from Coronar, misappropriated said 
knowledge and information and utilized it in preparing its 



proposal to sublease La Strada and The Fog Bank Bar. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

1. For the imposition of a trust in favor of Coronar 
upon the property, interest, and profits acguired by Sanchez and 
Casa Sanchez from their sublease of La Strada and The Fog Bank 
Bar; 

2. For general damages in the amount of 
$4,800,000.00, and special damages in an amount to be 
ascertained according to proof; 

3 . For punitive damages against Sanchez in the 
amount of $1,000,000.00 for his willful, intentional, and 
malicious breach of fiduciary duty; 

4. For costs of suit incurred herein; 

5. For attorneys' fees; and 

6. For such other and further relief as this Court 
deems proper. 

Dated: September , 1992 STEIN LUBIN & LERNER 



By: 



Andrew M. Gold 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
CORONAR GROUP, a California 
general partnership 



£P 04 '92 11 47 TO 4159863354 FROM UERl-ER fit ID ASSOC. T-5G? P. 02 



CORONAR GROUP 
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 



AGREEMENT made February 1, 1991 by Carlos A. Quiroz, Robert 
C. Sanchez, Ramiro Castro, and Isaac M. Mejia, herein referred to 
as partners. 

In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, 
the partners hereby form a partnership in accordance with the 
Partnership Law of the State of California on the terms and 
conditio. is set forth below: 

1. Name of Partnership. The Partnership is to be named 
Coronar 3roup. All partnership business is to be conducted under 
said nam i and ownership of all partnership property is to be held 
under sa :d name. 

2. >urpose of Partnership. The Partnership will own, 
develop, manage, lease, operate, and in any respect deal in and 
with sal i of food and beverages through and without limitation, 
the ownership and/or operations of restaurants and bars, 
cafeterias, catering services, and other food and beverage 
establisnments. The Partnership may engage in any lawful 
activities incident to carrying on Partnership business. 

3. Partnership Office. The principal office of the 
Partnership shall be located at 2601 Mission Street, 9th Floor, 
City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of 
California and at such other places as shall be mutually agreed 
upon by the partners. 

4. Duration of Partnership. The Partnership shall commence 
on February 1, 1991, and it shall continue until dissolved by the 
mutual agreement of the partners or by operation of law. 

5. Capital Contributions. The capital of the Partnership is 
to Thirty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Dollars ($34,690). 
Each partner is to contribute the following amount: 

Carlos A. Quiroz $ 7,190 

Robert C. Sanchez S 10,000 

Ramiro Castro $ 7,500 

Isaac M. Mejia § 10,000 

Thr contributions of all partners must be made to the 
partnerr hip on or before December 31, 1991 or this agreement 
shall bt void and of no effect. 

6. Profit and Loss Shares. The partners 6hall share in the 
profits and losses of the business on the following basis: 

Carlos A. Quiroz 26.66% 

Robert C. Sanchez 26.66% 

Ramiro Castro 20.02% 

Isaac M. Mejia 26.66% 

Thf-se percentages may be changed in accordance with 
Paragraph 7. 

7. Additional Contributions. If partners holding, in 
combination, a greater than 50% profit and loss interest in the 
Partnership determine that the Partnership needs an amount of 
funds i i excess of those obtained through mortgage loans or other 



- 1 - 



P 04 "92 11 47 TO 415986.3354 FROM WERNER AND ASSOC. T-50? P. 03 



commercial financing to conduct its business and properly meet 
its goals, then each partner shall contribute a portion of such 
additional funds to the Partnership. Said additional 
contributions are to be made in proportion to the partners' 
profit and loss Interests in the Partnership. Said contributions 
are to be made within 60 days of the determination that they are 
required. Any additional contributions made to the partnership 
shall be added to the contributing partners' capital accounts. 

If any partner (defaulting partner) fails to make the 
required additional contribution in whole or in part, the other 
partners shall make up the difference in proportion to their 
profit and loss interests in the Partnership. 

Partners making additional contributions due to the failure 
of a partner to contribute his share shall have the option to 
treat their extra contribution either as a loan to the defaulting 
partner or as a capital contribution to the partnership. If a 
partner elects to have his additional contribution treated as a 
contribution to capital it shall be added to his capital account. 
In such case, the profit and loss interests of all of the 
partners shall be recomputed in accordance with the total capital 
contributions of each partner since the inception of the 
Partnership. If a partner making an additional contribution due 
to the default of another partner elects to have his payment 
treated as a loan and shall pay interest thereon at an annual 
rate two percentage points higher than the prime rate in effect 
at the "uime of the loan., The defaulting partner's capital 
account shall be increased to reflect his contribution to the 
Partnership of the amount of the loan that was made to him. Any 
Partnership cash distributions due to the defaulting partner 
shall be paid to the partner who has loaned him funds until such 
loan is fully repaid. 

8. Partnership Management. Carlos A. Quiroz shall act as 
the managing partner of ths Partnership and shall manage and 
control the day-to-day Partnership matters and shall manage 
Partnership property, subject to the exceptions provided herein. 

Th.2 managing partner is responsible for the keeping of 
records of all Partnership transactions. These records are to be 
available for inspection by the other partners during regular 
business hours provided five (5) days written notice has been 
given by the partner or partners seeking inspection. The 
managing partner is to furnish financial statements of the 
Partnership to the partners within ninety (90) days of the close 
of the Partnership's taxable year. The managing partner will 
provide such services to the Partnership as he deems proper for 
the conduct of Partnership business. The managing partner will 
not be held liable to the Partnership or the other partners for 
mistakes or errors in judgment made in good faith. The managing 
partner shall only be liable for acts and omissions of 
intentional wrongdoing. The managing partner shall be not be 
compensated for his services; however, he shall be reimbursed for 
any expenses reasonably incurred in conducting partnership 
business. Partners owning in combination more than 50% of the 
profit and loss interests in the partnership may remove the 
managing partner at any time and name a replacement. 

9. Partnership Business Operations. While the day 
management of Partnership affairs is to be run by the managing 
partner pursuant to Paragraph 8, the following actions can only 
be taken with the unanimous approval of all of the partners. 

(a) Buying, leasing, or otherwise acquiring and/or operating 
food and beverage establishments. 

(b) Amending the Partnership agreement. 

(c) Admitting new partners to the Partnership. 

- 2 - 



EP 04 '92 11:48 TO 4159863354 FROM UERNER AND ASSOC. T-507 P. 04 



Any other actions that are not reasonably interpreted to 
fall within the day to day operations of the partnership and 
which arc not listed above shall only be taken with the approval 
of partners who, in combination, possess a greater than 50% 
profit and loss interest in the Partnership. 

10. New Partners. A new partner shall only be admitted to 
the Partnership after he agrees in writing to be bound by the 
terms of this agreement. A new partner shall receive a capital 
interest and a share in the profits and losses of the Partnership 
as determined by the other partners when the new partner joins 
the Partnership. 

11. Transfer of Partnership Interest. Any partner may 
transfer all or part of his Partnership interest to or for the 
benefit of his spouse or descendants. Such a transferee shall 
thereupon become a partner possessed of all the rights, interests 
and obligations of the transferor partner. No partner shall be 
allowed to pledge, or cause a lien to be placed against, his 
Partnership interest. 

12. Partner Buy-out. Except as provided in paragragh 11 
above, no partner shall sell or transfer his Partnership interest 
without first offering it for sale to the Partnership. Such 
offer shall include the terms of the proposed sale. The 
Partnership shall have thirty (30) days to act on the offer. Such 
action must be taken by partners other than the offeror who, in 
combination, own a majority of the profit and loss interest in 
the Partnership, excluding the interest of the offeror. If the 
decision Is made to purchase the offeror's Partnership interest, 
said purchase shall be made within 45 days of the notification to 
the offe.or that the offer has been accepted. Said sale shall be 
made upon the terms contained in the offer. If such sale is not 
made within such forty-five (45) day period, then the offeror may 
sell his interest within a six-month period to an outsider for 
terms no more favorable in any respect than those contained in 
the offer to the partners. 

13. Partner's death. The Partnership shall terminate upon 
the death of a partner unless the surviving partners unanimously 
agree to continue the Partnership. If the Partnership continues, 
the deceased partner's successor in interest shall stand in his 
place with respect to his partnership interest. However, in the 
event said successor in interest is neither the deceased 
partner's estate, spouse, or descendant, the interest of the 
deceased partner shall be treated as having been offered for sale 
at a price agreed upon by the Partnership and the deceased 
partner's representative or, if no agreement as to price is 
reached, then by an independent appraiser selected until the 
concurrence of the representative of the deceased partner's 
estate and the Partnership. 

14. Partner's Bankruptcy, Incompetence, or Retirement. In 
the event any partner shall be adjudicated bankrupt, adjudged 
incompetent, or elect to retire without first offering to sell 
his interest to the remaining partners, then such partner shall 
be deemei to have offered to sell his interest to the remaining 
partners under the procedures described in Paragraph 11. The 
terms of sale shall be determined by an independent appraiser 
selected with the concurrence of the representative of the 
partner whose interest is being offered for sale or his 
representative and the remaining partners. 

15. Books of Account. Books of account of the transactions 
of the pirtnership shall be kept at the principal place of 
business, and shall be available at all times for inspection by 
any partner. Each partner shall cause to be entered upon the 
books an accurate account of all his dealings, receipts, and 
expenditures for or on account of the Partnership. 

- 3 - 



EP 04 '92 11:4? TO 4159863354 



FROM WERNER AND ASSOC. 



T-5G7 P. 05 



16. Dissolution. In the event that all partners agree to 
dissolve the Partnership, the business shall be wound up, the 
debts pa:d, and the surplus divided among the partners in 
accordance with their respective interests. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement 
on February 1, 1991. 



a 



Carlos A. Quiroz 



Robert C. Sanchez 



if 



Robert C. Sanchez 
J 





rim (Pr/flU'tin- 



- 4 - 



- 



TO: The San Francisco International Airport 
Airport's Commission 

I. Alternative Program to the Staff's Two Door-To-Door Shuttle 
Van Proposal. 

In the Memorandum to the Airport's Commission, dated 
September 4, 1992, it was recommended that a Request for 
Proposals be issued for a "Two Door-to-Door Van Service 
Agreement." It further states that the proposal will ease 
congestion at the upper level, improve the quality of service, 
increase vehicle occupancy, promotor public safety and public 
convenience, decrease incidents of solicitation and avoid the 
effects of destructive competition. 

This proposal, if limited to two companies, will put over 20 
shuttle van operations out of business and cause many to suffer 
substantial losses because of their investments in vans and 
facilities acquired to provide their public services. Further, 
the time and money expended to acquire passenger stage 
corporation authorities from the California Public Utilities 
Commission to serve the airport's travelers will also be lost 
through the proposed change. 

The public will suffer as will the service if it is limited 
to two operators. It is evident that the principal and 
overriding goal of a successful bidder is to make money from his 
exclusively shared agreement. If more profit can be realized by 
a diminution of service, less responsive scheduling, or 
unjustifiable increases in rates, these changes obviously will be 
made. 

It is questionable if the upper level congestion will be 
eased because the curb coordinators will control calling vans 
from the standby area in the same manner as the present 
procedure. The quality of service will not be improved because 
of the paramount interest in maximum profits. There will be 
increased occupancy because it is more profitable to hold the 
vans until maximum loads are obtained. This will result in long 
delays awaiting departure from the airport and a 3-hour trip 
around the Bay Area while passengers are being dropped off from 
the well-occupied vehicle. Thus, public convenience will be 
severely impaired through the proposal. There will probably be 
an increase rather than a decrease in unauthorized solicitation 
because many of the disfranchised van carriers will be struggling 
to survive. Avoiding the effects of destructive competition is 
possible because the staff's program is designed to destroy 
competition. 



71020.1 



As an alternative to the staff's program, it is proposed 
that the San Francisco International Airport and Los Angeles 
International Airport, rather than seeking a moratorium from the 
California Public Utilities Commission, ask the California 
Legislature to enact legislation that will limit the number of 
licensed airport shuttle operators by requiring proof they need 
for the additional services. The Commission should allow 
existing carriers to increase the numbers of their shuttle vans 
if they meet the requirements set forth in the existing Airport 
Regulations. The airport should exercise more stringent control 
over the activities of the shuttle operators, their services and 
relationships with their riders. 

The San Francisco International Airport presently has a 
responsive and very competitive shuttle van service which with 
limited changes provides a far superior public transportation 
than would be available from the proposed Two Door-to-Door 
Shuttle Van Agreements. 

II. Request To Add Vans As Authorized By Existing Airport 
Regulations 

The airport staff has established a moratorium which 
prevents airport shuttle van carriers from adding vans to their 
services even though carriers can satisfy the requirements of 
Section 1, 4, 7 (A)(2)(A) of the Airport's Rules and Regulations 
which authorize such additions. It is respectfully requested 
that the airport staff be directed to permit the utilization of 
additional vans as prescribed by the Airport Regulations and in 
support of this request offers the following: 

1. On November 6, 1991, at the request of the Los Angeles 
(LAX) and San Francisco (SFO) airports, the California 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) declared a six-month 
moratorium on grants of authorities to serve the two 
airports applicable to applications filed with the 
Commission after November 6, 1991. The moratorium will 
remain in effect until May 6, 1992. 

2. Prior to November 6, 1991, and subsequent to that date, 
upon receipt of PSC certificates, carriers receiving 
new PUC authorities were advise by SFO that "your door- 
to-door operations will be limited in accordance with 
the Airport's January 28, 1992, notice. That notice 
refers to Sections 1, 4, 7 (A)(2)(a) of the Airport's 
Rules and Regulations which, in part, reads: 

"All commercial operators of ground 
transportation services are 
required to have the authorization 
of the State of California Public 
Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the 

71020.1 2 



Director of Airports to operate 
from the airport to any service 
area . " 

". . .in addition, all new door- 
to-door van firms operating to 
either San Francisco and/or San 
Mateo Counties, will be restricted 
to two (2) vans operating at the 
Airport until such time as the 
operator can demonstrate that 
passenger load factors exceed 75 
percent as specified above." 

3. Despite the Airport's Rules and Regulations, the SFO 
airport staff presently refuses to allow authorized van 
carriers to increase the vans they utilize for their 
airport services. In effect, the staff created a 
moratorium which is inconsistent with and even contrary 
to the Airport's Rules and Regulations. 

4. Permitting van services to increase the units they 
utilize for their airport services will not create 
problems at the airport for the following reasons: 

a. Unsafe vehicles will not be used because the vans 
must be inspected by the airport police and many 
of these units by the California Highway Patrol 
and must be found to conform to all safety 
requirements before they are permitted to operate. 

b. Permitting operators to add vans to serve the 
airport will not exacerbate the congestion, rather 
it will reduce congestion. Either travelers will 
use the multiple passenger vans, taxicabs, or 
buses to and from the airport or their own 
automobiles. Using their own automobiles results 
in a higher volume of vehicles using the airport 
traffic lanes, which vehicles are operated by 
drivers who are inexperienced and, generally, are 
completely unfamiliar with driving at the airport 
and the stopping and parking procedures and 
regulations. Further automobiles require on and 
off airport parking space which is presently 
inadequate, particularly during peak travel 
periods. 

c. The holding area assigned for shuttle vans is 
never presently filled and can hold additional 
units. Vehicles of the van carriers cannot add to 
the congestion by being permitted to participate 
in the curb pickup service because the only vans 



71020.1 



allowed to stop in the curb pickup areas are those 
ordered to do so by the dispatchers who control 
these areas. 

d. The staff argues that there has been a decline in 
passenger travel, therefore added service should 
not be authorized. It is evident that this a 
temporary aberration due to the recession. If 
there has been a decline, it is no different than 
the 2 million passenger decline between 1980 and 
1981 during the earlier recession. There 
obviously will be a continuing and steady growth 
of the patronage of the airport which has 
increased from 13 million in 1970 to over 30 
million in 1990. The SFIA Master Plan projects 
SFO's annual passengers in 1996 to exceed 42 
million and in the year of 2006 to be over 51 
million travelers. Clearly, more public service 
is imperative for the future than is available 
today. A critical problem is to get people using 
the airport out of their automobiles and into the 
multiple passenger public services. Restrictions 
on these public services clearly is in no one's 
best interest. 

e. Illegal van operators can only be discovered and 
regulated by governmental controls. All shuttle 
vans operating at SFO must be licensed by the PUC 
and SFO and their licenses or stickers should be 
prominently displayed. If their operations at the 
airport are unlawful, they should be cited and 
fined and the operating rights or authorities of 
persistent violators should be suspended or 
revoked . 



N020.1 



SAN FRANCISCO 



Door-to-Door Van Service 



SFO Van Stops: Upper level. Island, outside of airline ticket counters, all terminals 



ARIER 



SIGN 



FARE 



PHONE 



Irort Connection 

irrlean Alrporter Shuttle 

a Shuttle 

or-to-Door Airport Express 

rress Airport Shuttle 

r.iclsco's Adventure 

ole's Airport Shuttle 

aflc Airport Shuttle 

asr's Airport Shuttle 

uke City Shuttle 

F Advanced Shuttle 

F:ity Shuttle 

uer Shuttle 

ow Airport Shuttle 

[Jxnd person to same address) 



Red 

Yellow 

Yellow 

Red 

Red 

Yellow 

Yellow 

Red 

Red 

Yellow 

Red 

Red 

Blue 

Yellow 



S9-S11 

$8-$11 

$3-$ 10 

$3-10 

$9 

$8 

S8-S11 

$9 

$a-$io 

$10 
$9 

$10-$14 
$11 »$8 
$9 



415/877-0901* 

415/876-0411 - 415/282-8700 

415/564-3400 

415/775-5121 - 800/835-6009 

800/675-1115 - 408/378-6270 

415/821-0903 

415/334-9000 

415/252-8300 

415/564-5252 - 415/564-5253 

415/777-4899 

415/546-6111 

800/287-4968 

415/558-8500 - 415/871-7800 

415/282-7433 

•Call for All Pick-ups 



Scheduled Transportation 



SFO Stops: Lower level, blue column, outside of the baggage claim area, all terminals 



F Alrporter 
1/673-2433 

tone way 
1 round trip 



cr to Door Airport Express 
1/775-5121 

(one way 



Downtown Hotels & BART: 

Route il 

ANA Hotel San Francisco, Grand Hyatt, Kestln 

St. Francis, Hilton. Nlkko. Pare 55, Marriott 

Route t2 

Sir Francis Drake, Holiday Inn Union Square, Kestln 
St. Francis. Hilton, Nlkko, Sheraton Palace, 
Hyatt Regency 

Downtown Hotels: 

Handlery, Four Season Cllft. Hotel David. Callfornlan, 

Shannon Court. Geary Hotel 



Frequency from Sfp 
6:10 5 - 11:10 pn 
every 20 minutes 



6:00 am to 11:00 pn 
every 20 ilnutes 



8:15 am to 10:00 pn 
every 20 ahutes 



SFO SamTrans Stops: Upper Level. Curbslde 

South Terminal: Outside of Delta Airlines 

North Terminal: Outside of American Trans Air 



UTrans 
IH/660-4287 

9B 7B: $ .85 

08 36: $ .85 

09 7F: $1.75 



Route 7B South: 

Redwood City. San Carlos. Belmont, Burllngame 

Route 7B North: 

South San Francisco, Brisbane. Downtown San Francisco 

Route 3B South: 

umbrae. Caltraln, Burllngame Plaza 

Route 3B North: 

San Bruno, SouUi San Francisco, Daly City BART, Stonestown 

Route 7F South: 

Belmont. San Carlos. Redwood City. Atherton. Menlo Park, 

Palo Alto 

Route 7F North:' 

Domtown San Francisco 



Frequency from SFO 

Every 1/2 hour from approxtoately 

5:30 an to 1:00 an 



Every 1/2 hour from approximately 
6:00 an to 6:00 pn 



Every 1/2 hour fron approximately 
6:00 an to 1:00 an 

•NO LUGGAGE 



III Connections can be nade at the Powell Street station with the SFO Alrporter 6top at the Pare 55 Hotel, or at the 
Ogomery street station with the SFO Alrporter stop at the ANA Hotel San Francisco. Passengers can also transfer between BART 
nSanTrans 38 Route at Daly City, or at Civic Center station with SamTrans 7F Express and 78 Local routes on Mission Street (one 
*< south of BART). 

I Taxis $21 -$34 (Approximate) 



SFO Stops: 



Lower level, yellow column, outside baggage claim, all terminals 
$21 Cow Palace - $34 Fisherman's Miarf 



, Luxury Lfcnouslnos 

At SFO, arrange service by going to the Associated/Airport Connection Limousine counter on the lower level, all termhals near 

the baggage claim area. Hourly rate to charter Is $50. Shared ride service In San Francisco Is $10-$17. 

Hak-up rate to any 1 stop In San Francisco Is $40.00 (4 or fewer passengeres) $10 for each additional person or stop 

Phone 415/877-0433 
White Courtesy Phone 7-0432 



792 



J J 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



OCTOBER 6, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 

MARIE K. BROOKS 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



NOV 3 1992 

SAN FRAV "> 
PUBLIC Llo.w». J 







Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 










October 6, 1992 






CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 







Informational Meeting of 

Sept. 2, 1992 and Regular 

Meeting of Sept. 15, 1992 92-0258 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

SPECIAL ITEM: 

Election of Officers 92-0259 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



3 
3 

4-14 
4 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Approve Bond Sale & Documents 92-0260 

So. San Francisco Home Insulation 
Funding - FY 92/93 ($250,000) 92-0261 



Award of Lease - Lingerie & 
Haberdashery Shop 



92-0262 



4-6 



H. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Appoint Airport Rep. to CCAG 92-0263 



Award Contract 3124 - Runway 
Rubber Removal - 1992/93 



92-0264 



6-7 

7 



7. Award Contract 3144 - Underground 

Utilities Repairs - 1992/93 92-0265 7 

8. Award Risk Assessment Contract 92-0266 7 

9. Boarding Area "E" Principal 

Concession Retail Lease 92-0267 7 

10. Bid Call - Contract 3161 - Intern'l 
Terminal Upper Level Road Leak 

Repair 92-0268 8 

11. Bid Call - Contract 3187 - Emergency 

Pavement Repairs - 1992/93 92-0269 8 

12. Shuttle Bus Agreement #68252, 

Mod. #10 92-0270 8 

13. Substitute Sub-Contractor - Contract 
2333R - Airport Maintenance Base - 

Replace Security Gates A & B 92-0271 8-9 

14. Declaration of Emergency - Contract 
3166 - Emergency Water Main Repair 

- Fire Station No. 1 92-0272 9 

15. Travel/Training 92-0273 9 

I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

16. Parking Rate Increase 9 

j. NEW BUSINESS: 

Free Speech Activities 10-12 

Master Plan Mitigation Measures 12-13 

K. CORRESPONDENCE: 14 

L. CLOSED SESSION: 

Potential Litigation; Personnel 14 

m ADJOURNMENT: u 



Minutes, October 6, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 6, 1992 

CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 

L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Marie K. Brooks 

Commissioner Ho arrived at 9:14 A.M. 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Informational Meeting of September 2, 1992 and the Regular Meeting of 
September 15, 1992 were adopted by order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0258 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0257 regarding the settlement of 
litigation with Eastern Air Lines at 
the closed session of Sept. 15. 1992. 



Minutes, October 6, 1992, Page 3 



E. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1 . Election of Officers 

This item was put over to the end of the calendar. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Mattison asked Mr. Turpen if the Commission would be briefed 
on the Airport's on-going discussions with the airlines. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Commission would be briefed. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item nos. 2 through 4 were adopted unanimously. 

2. Approval of Bond Sale and Bond Documents 

No. 92-0260 Resolution authorizing sale of 

refunding bonds and approving official 
bond documents. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director said that this item concerns a 
forward delivery refunding of Series B, D, and E bonds which should 
result in significant savings to the Airport. 



So. San Francisco Home Insulation Funding - FY 92/93 ($250,000) 

No. 92-0260 Resolution authorizing expenditure of 

funds by the Director to insulate 
approximately 100 residences in So. 
San Francisco previously authorized 
for FY93/94 but now scheduled for 
completion in FY92/93. Expenditure of 
$250,000 is limited to ;he following: 

a. 20X of the building insulation 
costs for each unit. 

b. Subject to granting a Noise Easement 
to the C&CofSF for each unit 
insulated. 

Minutes, October 6, 1992. Page 4 



Mr. Turpen explained that this item moves some previously authorized 
funding up a fiscal year. He said that between the Commission's 
authorizations and Federal authorizations about $25-million has been 
put in the bank for home insulation on the Peninsula. Thus far only 
$5-mi 1 1 i on has been expended. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the home insulation program is controlled 
by the local communities. Each community runs its own program and 
determines the pace. We are delighted to see this accel leration and 
would hope that there will be similar accel lerations so that the 
money that has already been set aside will be expended. 

Commissioner Murphy said that there has been commentary in the press 
suggesting that the Airport has been dragging its feet on home 
insulation. He said that that was news to him. 

Mr. Turpen responded that a general confusion existed in the community 
as to how the home insulation program works and who is responsible. 
The Airport has been working to clarify that confusion. The home 
insulation program, funded by the Airport and the Federal government, 
is run by each individual community. To his knowledge neither the 
Airport nor the Federal government has refused any request for home 
insulation funds. Currently there is $20-mi 1 1 ion waiting to be 
expended for home insulation, not counting any future amounts. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if the homes referred to have been 
authorized to begin insulation. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he believed that So. San Francisco, the 
first community to enter into this program in 1983, has identified 
the homes for insulation. When the work is completed, the community 
submits the project to the FAA for the Federal portion of the funding 
and provides the Airport with avigation easements in exchange for our 
local matching share. The City Attorney determined that the Airport 
could not match funds without consideration. The consideration agreed 
upon by the communities and the Airport was the avigation easement. 

Commissioner Murphy asked which cities on the Peninsula have their 
programs up and going. 

Mr. Turpen responded that So. San Francisco is probably the most 
advanced. San Bruno, Mi 1 1 brae , Daly City and Pacifica have actually 
modeled their programs on So. San Francisco's. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the Airport assists these cities with 
procedural issues. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff has worked with all the cities in 
helping them prepare their documentation to the FAA. It is a fairly 
rote exercise after the first submittal. It is now a question of 
getting the work done and expending the already escrowec funds against 
the work that needs to be done. He guessed that $20-milhon would 
insulate 1 ,500 to 1 ,800 homes. 

Minutes. October 6. 1992, Page 5 



Mr. Turpen said that today, according to the latest maps, there are 
only about 5,000 to 6,000 homes impacted by noise under State 
standards. The funds currently available will insulate a quarter of 
the impacted homes. 

Mr. Turpen explained that when the community delivers the avigation 
easement to the San Francisco Director of Properties and it is 
executed, the Director of Properties advises the Airport and the 
funds are released. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if any requests to release funds were 
pending or have not been promptly honored. 

Mr. Turpen responded that none were pending to his knowledge. He 
said that he has never received a complaint under the program. 



Award of Lease - Lingerie and Haberdashery Shop 

No. 92-0262 Resolution awarding Lingerie and 

Haberdashery shop Lease to Western 
Motives. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

5. Appointment of Airports Commission Representative to the City/County 
Association of Governments (CCAG) 

No. 92-0263 

Mr. Turpen explained that the City/County Association of Governments 
(CCAG) is a group of 19 cities on the Peninsula in San Mateo County 
which are working cooperatively on a number of issues. Among the 
issues most visible are traffic mitigation and, working through the 
Airport Community Roundtable, noise mitigation resulting from Airport 
operations. Mr. Ray Miller, Chair of CCAG, nd the membership of CCAG 
recognize that the Airport is a major geographic and economic entity 
in San Mateo County and thought it was prudent to include the Airport, 
at least on an ex officio basis, as a member. As CCAG often discusses 
issues that involve the Airport the membership felt that including an 
Airport representative was important so that community officials 
could receive prompt responses to their questions. 

Mr. Turpen said that the resolution before the Commission appoints him 
as the primary representative to CCAG and John Costas as his 
alternate. He felt that Mr. Costas was particularly important as we 
work through the Master Plan. He said that he might change the 
alternate designation at a later date, depending on the issues. 

Minutes, October 6, 1992, Page 6 



Commissioner Murphy noted that Mr. Miller's letter requested that a 
Commissioner be appointed but felt that would be inappropriate. 

Mr. Turpen said that historically the Commission, recognizing that it 
would be in a position of taking action on possible outcomes of our 
relationship with CCAG, felt it important to maintain an arms-length 
relationship. It was suggested that that he and Mr. Costas can 
represent the Airport and at the same time bring back those matters 
of import and maintain that arms-length relationship. That is 
consistent with the Commission's thinking over the years. 



6. Award of Contract No. 3124 : 

Runway Rubber Removal - 1992-1993 

No. 92-0264 Resolution awarding Contract 3124 to 

Rampart Waterblast, Inc. in the amount 
of $298,000.00. 

Commissioner Brooks asked why an out-of-State firm was being used. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities Operations & Maintenance 
responded that approximately 12 firms requested the plans and specs. 
Unfortunately, due to the Airport's location next to San Francisco 
Bay we have very stringent guidelines as to what methodologies can be 
used. Most companies use chemicals. Rampart is the only company 
that staff is aware of that uses a high pressure removal process. 
Rampart does most of the major airports in the United States. 



Award of Contract No. 3144 

Airport Underground Utilities Repairs - 1992-1993 

No. 92-0265 Resolution awarding Contract No. 3144 

to Bay Pacific Pipelines, Inc., in the 
amount of $163,925.00. 



Award of Risk Assessment Contract 

No. 92-0266 Resolution authorizing award of 

contract to assess petroleum storage 
tank and pipel ine ri sk. 



9. Boarding Area "E" Principal Concession Retail Lease 

No. 92-0267 Resolution authorizing staff to accept 

bids for Boarding Area "E" Principal 
Concession Retail Lease. 
Minutes, October 6. 1992, Page 7 



10. Bid Call - Contract No. 3161 

International Terminal Upper Level Road Leak Repair 

No. 92-0268 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget, and schedule for Contract No. 

3161 and authorizing the Director of 

Airports to call for bid when ready. 



11 . Bid Call - Contract No. 3187 

Emergency Pavement Repairs - 1992-1993 

No. 92-0269 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget, and scedule for Contract No. 
3187, and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



12. Shuttle Bus Agreement #68252, Modification #10 

No. 92-0270 Resolution setting rates and making 

reimbursements for SF0 Shuttle Bus Co. 
Resolution establishes 1992 hourly 
rates at $32.9002 per basic hour and 
$22.9370 per incremental hour, a 
deduction of $59.08 for overpayment of 
1991 employee health & welfare 
premiums, payment of $10,028.08 for 
unanticipated 1991 insurance premiums, 
payment of $148,798.00 over four 
quarterly payments for 1992 pass- 
through insurance payments, payment of 
$10,268.52 for unanticipated 
maintenance work resulting from defects 
in the Orion transit coaches, and 
reimbursing SF0 Shuttle the difference 
between 1992 & 1991 for services 
rendered between Jan. 1 and Oct. 1, 
1992. 



Commissioner Ho arrived at the call of item no. 13. 

13. Substitution of Sub-Contractor - Contract No. 2333R 

Airport Maintenance Base Replacement of Security Gates A & B 

No. 92-0271 Resolution approving the substitution 

of electrical subcontractor, Englehart 
Electric Co. of Belmont, with Liberty 
Electric Co. of Burlingame. 

Minutes, October 6, 1992, Page 8 



Commissioner Mattison asked why the substitution was being made. 

Mr. Bouey responded that the contractor said that on a number of 
occasions the subcontractor had been scheduled to do work and failed 
to show up. Although the subcontractor disputes the allegation, he 
consented to the substitution. Liberty Electric has previously done 
work on the Airport. Although it is an MBE, it is not located in San 
Francisco and is therefore not a certified MBE. Staff has agreed to 
the substitution. 



14. Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3166 

Emergency Water Main Repair at Fire Station No. 1 

No. 92-0272 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

Commission President in declaring an 
emergency because of a water main 
break supplying Fire House No. 1 and 
directing the Director of Airports to 
effect the necessary repairs. 



5. Travel /Training 
No. 92-0273 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was convened at 9:15 AM and adjourned at 9:17 AM, there 
being no requests to speak from the public. 

16. Hearing on Parking Rate Increase 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance informed 
the Commission that the item indicates that the parking rate increase 
would go into effect December 1. Staff is proposing that it go into 
effect November 17 which would generate an additional $175,000 in 
revenue . 

Commissioner Murphy commented that the last time this item appeared 
before the Commission staff was sent packing. He said that he felt 
that the time was now right. 



Minutes. October 6. 1992, Page 9 



NEW BUSINESS: 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Reuben Davis if he wished to address the 
Commission. He reminded Mr. Davis of the three minute rule. 

Mr. Davis said that he and thousands of other Airport users have 
complained to the Airports Commission about being solicited for money. He 
said that he has appeared before the Commission where his complaint was 
noted. He said that the Commission agreed with him entirely. He said 
that the Commission informed him that there was nothing the Airport could 
do to stop passengers from being solicited for money. He said that the 
Commission President agreed that he would like the practice stopped and 
made some remarks about free speech, the American constitution and the 
First Amendment. Mr. Davis said that the Commission President said nothing 
about "aiding the beggars" by giving them a booth free of charge in a prime 
Airport location, enabling them to solicit and interfere with passengers. 

Mr. Davis said that in the Commission President's reply to his last letter 
he mentioned that he asked staff to look into the matter. 

Mr. Davis told the Commission President that that was all "a lot of cods 
wallop" because the Airport executive offices have been aware of the 
complaints for several months and were in total agreement with him. He 
was told categorically that the Airport was not built for the purpose of 
soliciting passengers for money. The behavior of the booth's occupants 
was an "eyesore and a cancer that had to be removed." He said that every 
member of the Airport Police from Chief Driscoll down was disgusted at the 
way Airport users were accosted. 

Mr. Davis stated that the Police were well aware of the Supreme Court 
ruling and that what the occupants of the booth were doing was illegal but 
they could not do anything about it. The "beggars" had permission and 
were given free facilities by the Airports Commission. He said that "a 
blind eye and a deaf ear" were turned to the Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. Davis said that he had a strong suspicion that something was wrong and 
was well aware that the occupants of the booth were doing big business. 
He said that his suspicions were confirmed when he recently visited the 
Airport and noted that the booth was occupied by only one person. He 
approached the individual behind the booth and struck up a conversation, 
eventually telling the occupant that he was looking for a job. Mr. Davis 
said he was told that he would make an excellent collector and that he 
could work with him at the Airport. He would receive 50% of all the money 
he collected. He was told that the booth was provided free but he would 
have to pay towards a monthly amount for an Airport official who allowed 
them to operate. He was told that he would easily pick up $3,000 a week. 

Mr Davis said that on Friday, October 3 he went to the Airport to meet 
passengers When he approached that same individual the other occupants 
of the booth said "Oh, he's here again." He said that he told the 
occupants that it was illegal to solicit passengers for contributions. 
The occupants responded that they had a "license" to solicit money at the 
Airport. He asked to see the "license." The "license", signed by Mr. 

Minutes, October 6. 1992, Page 10 



Turpen, allowed them to solicit money at the Airport from October 1 to 31 , 
1992. The "license" was given four months after the Supreme Court ruled 
that it was illegal for any persons to solicit for money at airports. 

Mr. Davis said that the "license" can be revoked if any laws are violated. 
It allows the permittee to use booths in the International, North and 
South Terminals. 

Mr. Davis said that paragraph 8 of the "license" states that "permittee 
shall not obstruct or interfere with the use of escalators, stairs, 
corridors, halls, doorways of elevators at the Airport in conducting the 
activities described herein." But it does not mention that they must not 
interfere with passengers. 

Mr. Davis said that paragraph 9 states that "the permittee agrees in the 
use of the premises provided for herein to comply with all applicable 
Airport rules and regulations as well as all local. State and Federal 
laws." Federal law states that they should not solicit for money. 

Commissioner Murphy told Mr. Davis that he was well over his three minute 
time limit. He said that the Supreme Court rule does not say that it is 
illegal to solicit at airports, it says that an ordinance could be passed 
making it illegal to solicit funds. 

Mr. Davis asked why these people were given a prime booth in the Airport 
where every departing passenger who passes by and is accosted. These 
people are strangers to this country. They pass this official looking 
booth and are called over and solicited for money. He asked what 
inducement there was for the Airports Commission to allow this to go on. 

Commissioner Murphy said that the Commission has not taken formal action 
since the Supreme Court decision was made. The matter is more complex 
than Mr. Davis realizes. Staff is looking at a range of alternatives, one 
of which is kicking them out of the Airport altogether. He explained that 
the Airport must also abide by the California Constitution. 

Mr. Davis argued that they are violating Federal law. 

Commissioner Murphy again said that staff is taking a hard look at this. 
He said that LAX and San Diego are also taking a hard look at this issue 
as well. He strongly suspected that within the next meeting or two 
something will be presented to the Commission to alter the way that this 
is handled. He did not know what that would be at this time. 

Mr. Davis asked Commissioner Murphy or the other members of the Commission 
have been to the Airport and seen the "beggars" in action. 

Commissioner Murphy said that he has. 

Mr. Davis said that he has videos. He asked when this practice was going 
to be stopped. They are violating the law every minute of every day. 

CoMHSsioner Murphy told Mr. Davis that they must take their legal advice 
fro* the City Attorney's Office. 

Minutes, October 6, 1992. Page 11 



Mr. Davis asked Commissioner Murphy's assurance that this will be stopped. 

Commissioner Murphy said that he could give his assurance that this is 
being looked at very closely and will wait for the range of alternatives. 

Mr. Davis asked if the Commission felt this should be allowed to continue. 

Commissioner Mattison said that the Commission has not supported soliciting 
at the Airport for 20 years. We have lived under a variety of constraints 
and the booths were intended, and have been very effective, in rounding up 
people who were running around the Airport soliciting on a free range 
basis. At least they have been confined to specific booths. The Airport 
does not give them official sanction. We do not indulge their behavior. 
In fact, limitations are placed on their behavior. In the face of the 
recent Supreme Court decision we have a little more latitude in evaluating 
alternatives which will be done in accordance with the Commission's duties. 
He said that the Commission does not need Mr. Davis to tell them that they 
are derelict in their duties. Deliberations will be undertaken and a 
satisfactory conclusion will be reached under the full extent allowed by 
the law. He asked Mr. Davis that the Commission be allowed the latitude 
to complete the process. 

Mr. Davis said that United Airlines pays the Airport $45-million a year to 
rent space. He said that he has spoken personally to Mr. Steven Wolfe of 
United and Mr. Wolfe commented that he could not understand it. He has 
received numerous complaints from his passengers about being accosted. 

Mr. Davis said that the livelihood of the shopkeepers at the Airport is 
being taken away. They need to be protected. 

Commissioner Mattison said that the Commission is well aware of that. 

Commissioner Murphy said that there will be further action on this issue. 

Mr. Davis said that their booth is in a prime location. If the Commission 
feels that they must be given a booth he suggested that there was a nice 
place by the restrooms. 

Mr. Davis asked the Commission to do something about this problem. He 
said that 60 Minutes is very interested in this issue. 



Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Lou Dell'Angela if he wished to address the 
Commi ssion . 

Mr Dell'Angela thanked the Commission for holding a meeting at the 
Airport Hilton Hotel on September 2 and for being responsive to the people 
of San Mateo County. He felt that the meeting was an eye opener. 

Mr Dell'Angela hoped that the Commission received CAN'S October 2 
correspondence. It is an elaboration of the mitigation measures that were 
proposed at the September 2 meeting. 

Minutes, October 6, 1992, Page 12 



Mr. Dell 'Angels said that he felt that a lot of progress has been made in 
terms of discussions with governmental leaders, the Commission and the 
people of San Mateo County, particularly in the area of noise insulation. 
He said that any insulation program that includes less than complete 
insulation is going to be unacceptable. People would not go for cut-down 
versions of the insulation program. All 10,000 homes need to be insulated. 

Mr. Dell'Angela said that while the Commission has made great strides in 
home insulation there is a long way to go in terms of traffic and housing 
issues. Concrete recommendations and agreements have not been made in 
that area. The Airport needs to go back and get involved in mitigating 
the severe traffic problems and the housing deficiencies that will result. 
He said that another important area is on-Airport operations i.e., dealing 
with curfews. This needs to be an integral part of a mitigation package. 
He hoped the Airport would put more emphasis in those areas. 

Mr. Dell'Angela said that people in general don't like big projects. The 
don't like big buildings, they don't like highways, they don't like big 
airports unless a mitigation program is put in place that takes care of 
traffic and housing problems. 

Mr. Dell'Angela said that the San Mateo County residents asked the 
Commission not to treat the Airport expansion any different than the Board 
of Supervisors would treat any massive project in the City. No project 
would be approved that did not address all the impacts. Traffic, housing 
and operations need to be paid attention to. Anything less than a full 
package is unacceptable. The people and officials of San Mateo County 
will reject anything short of a complete and comprehensive package. 

Mr. Dell'Angela said that CAN has tried to be very constructive and 
positive and has tried to keep people up to date. They have offered 
suggestions, comments and mitigations that would help the Airport move 
forward with this project. To misread the people of San Mateo County and 
think that the Airport can throw an insulation program at them and not 
address traffic, housing and operations issues is naive and wrong. It 
needs to be done. 

Mr. Dell'Angela said that the people of San Mateo County need guarantees 
that these mitigation measures will be made, that the insulation program 
is in place and that San Mateo County residents can depend on these things. 

Mr. Dell'Angela felt that the MOU that is being discussed was not 
enforceable. Specifics are needed. It is too vague. 

Mr. Dell'Angela asked the Commission to consider having another meeting in 
San Mateo County. A new mitigation program is being formulated. It is 
important to show San Mateo County residents and officials that the Airport 
has responded to their comments, questions, concerns and recommendations 
and is willing to return to San Mateo County and discuss the final proposal 
that staff and the Commission have collaborated on. That would be another 
positive step in terms of being a good neighbor and put us on a positive 
path to getting the project moving. 

Minutes, October 6, 1992. Page 13 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

1 . Election of Officers 

No. 92-0259 

Commissioner Jeanpierre nominated Commissioner Murphy for President 
with a second by Commissioner Mattison. 

Commissioner Brooks nominated Commissioner Mattison for Vice 
President, with a second by Commissioner Ho. 

The vote was unanimous. 



K. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



L. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to discuss potention litigation, 
and, section 54957 to discuss personnel matters. 



N. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 
J 



Minutes, October 6, 1992, Page 14 



// 



SAN FRANCISCO 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 






//// 
OCTOBER 27. 1992 

SPECIAL MEETING 



DOCUMFMTS DEPT. 
NOV 1 9 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 
MARIE K. BROOKS 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

October 27, 1992 
Special Meeting 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular Meeting of 

October 6, 1992 92-0275 3 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 4 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Consideration of SFIA Master 
Plan 

Awarding the Sale of Second Series 
Refunding Bonds, Issues 2 & 3: 

- Establish Terms & Interest Rates 
of Second Series Refunding Bonds 
Issue 2 Pursuant to Results of 
Bid Opening 

- Award Sale of Second Series 
Refunding Bonds, Issue 2 

- Establish Terms & Interest Rates 
of Second series Refunding Bonds 
Issue 3 Pursuant to Results of 
Bid Opening 



4 



Award Sale of Second Series 

Refunding Bonds, Issue 3 4 



- Amend First Supplemental Resolution 
Adopted Sept. 15, 1992, Providing 
for Issuance of Refunding Revenue 
Bonds 

Rental Credit for Pilot Curbside 
Attendant Program 92-0276 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

4. Parking Rate Increase 92-0277 

5. Mods, of Legal Services Agreements 
with MoFo: Mod. No. 12 of Noise 
Issues Agreement - Reduce by $300,000; 
Mod. No. 5 of Airline/Master Plan 
Issues Agreement - Increase by 
$450,000 

6. Award of Contract No. 3151 - 
Tunnels A and C Leakage Repair 

7. Contract No. 3063 - Type II Mod. 
Emergency Pavement Repair 1992 

8. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 
Actions 

9. Travel/Training for FY 1992/93 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

Free Speech Activities 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

J. CLOSED SESSION: 

Personnel Matters 

K. ADJOURNMENT: 



92-0278 


5 


92-0279 


5 


92-0280 


5 


92-0281 


5 


92-0282 


5 



Minutes, October 27, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 27, 1992 
Special Meeting 

A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is available upon request 

CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:03 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 

L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Marie K. Brooks 

James K. Ho 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 1992 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0275 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0274 at the closed session of 
October 6, 1992. 



Minutes, October 27, 1992, Page 3 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Murphy said that he enjoyed the ACLU exhibit at the Airport. 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 
Item No. 1 was put over to November 3, 1992. 

1 . Consideration of San Francisco International Airport Master Plan 

Item No. 2 was put over to October 29, 1992. 

2. Awarding the Sale of the Second Series Refunding Bonds, Issues 2 & 3 

Resolutions: (1) Establish terms and interest rates of 

Second Series Refunding Bonds, Issue 2 
pursuant to results of the bid opening, 

(2) Awarding sale of the Second Series 
Refunding Bonds, Issue 2, 

(3) Establish terms and interest rates of 
Second Series Refunding Bonds, Issue 3 
pursuant to results of the bid opening, 

(4) Awarding sale of the Second Series 
Refunding Bonds, Issue 3, 

(5) Amend First Supplemental Resolution 
adopted Sept. 15, 1992, providing for 
issuance of refunding revenue bonds. 



Rental Credit for Pilot Curbside Attendant Program 

No. 92-0276 Placement of curbside attendants on 

center islands adjacent to terminal 
complex on a six month trial basis to 
discourage cart hustling. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
Item Nos. 4 through 9 were adopted unanimously. 

Minutes, October 27, 1992, Page 4 



4. Parking Rate Increase 
No. 92-0277 



Adopt proposed increase in public 
parking rates in the Garage and Lot D. 



5. Modifications of Legal Services Agreements with Morrison & Foerster: 
Mod. No. 12 of Noise Issue Agreement - Reduce by $300,000; Mod. No. 5 
of Airline Contract/Master Plan Issue Agreement - Increase by $450,000 



No. 92-0278 



Mod. of Legal Services Agreements with 
Morrison & Foerster by increasing funds 
to its Airline Contract & Master Plan 
Issues Agreement by $450,000, of which 
$300,000 represents a transfer of funds 
previously approved for the Noise Issue 
Agreement and $150,000 represents 
additional funding (Mod. Nos . 5 & 12). 



Award of Contract No. 3151 
Tunnels "A" and "C" Leakage Repair 



No. 92-0279 



Resolution awarding Contract 3151 to 
E-Z Does It Construction Co. in the 
amount of $63,950.00. 



Contract No. 3063 - Type II Modification 
Emergency Pavement Repair 1992 

No. 92-0280 



Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 
No. 92-0281 



Resolution, in accordance with the 
requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



9. Travel/Training For FY 1992/93 
No. 92-0282 



Minutes, October 27, 1992, Page 5 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



J. CLOSED SESSION: 



The Airports Commission will go into Closed Session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54957 to discuss personnel matters. 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting recessed at 10:20 A.M. and will reconvene on Thursday, October 29, 
1992 at 5:30 PM in the Public Health Department, 101 Grove Street, Rm. 300. 




CU~iJ~t* 



in Caramatti 
'Commission Secretary 



Minutes, October 27, 1992, Page 6 



/ 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




v'z 8 ? 



MINUTES 



OCTO] 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 
NOV 1 9 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



TOBER29.1992 
RECONVENED FROM OCTOBER 27, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 
MARIE K. BROOKS 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

October 29, 1992 
(Reconvened from October 27, 1992) 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 2 

B. ROLL CALL: 2 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Resolution Establishing Additional 

Terms of & Selling $107,370,000 

Principal Amount of SFIA Second 

Series Refunding Revenue Bonds, 

Issue 2 &Amending the 1991 

Resolution 92-0283 



D. ADJOURNMENT: 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 29, 1992 
(Reconvened from October 27, 1992) 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 



The reconvened meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
5:40 P.M. in the Department of Public Health, 101 Grove Street, Room 300, 
San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattlson, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
Marie K. Brooks 

Absent: James K. Ho 



C. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was adopted unanimously. 

1 . Resolution Establishing Additional Terms of and Selling $107,370,000 
Principal Amount of San Francisco International Airport Second Series 
Refunding Revenue Bonds, Issue 2 and Amending the 1991 Resolution 

No. 92-0283 



ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 5:44 P.M. 

/Je'an Caramattl 
jmmisslon Secretary 

Minutes, October 29, 1992, Page 2 




>, SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



NOVEMBER 3, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 



PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 




J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 




L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 




JAMES K. HO 




MARIE K. BROOKS 


. 


LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 


SAN J-K/w.~.o~0 

out •<* ■ 


SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 





Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

November 3, 1992 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A court reporter's transcript is available upon request. 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 2 

B. ROLL CALL: 2 

C ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 2 

D. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Consideration of SFIA Master 

Plan 92-0284 2 

2. Bid Call - Contract 3145 - Federal 
Immigration Services - New Locker 
Room & Restrooms - International 

Terminal 92-0825 3 

3. Contract 1697 - Type II Mod. - 
Drainage Improvement Canal to 

Drainage Pump Station No. 2 92-0286 3 

F. NEW BUSINESS: 3 

G. CORRESPONDENCE: 3 

H. CLOSED SESSION: 

Settlement - Rogden 3 

I. ADJOURNMENT: 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 3, 1992 

A court reporter's transcript is available upon request. 
A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:11 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
L. Andrew Jeanpierre 
James K. Ho 
Marie K. Brooks 



C. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



D. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 
Item no. 1 was adopted unanimously. 

1 . Consideration of San Francisco International Airport Master Plan 
No. 92-0284 

* * * 

E. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
Item nos . 2 and 3 were adopted unanimously. 

Minutes, November 3, 1992, Page 2 



2. Bid Call - Contract No. 3145 - Federal Immigration Services 
New Locker Room and Restrooms - International Terminal 

No. 92-0285 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract 3145 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



Contract No. 1697C - Type II Modification 

Drainage Improvement Canal to Drainage Pump Station No. 2 

No. 92-0286 



F. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



G. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



H. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into Closed Session In accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss pending litigation regarding 
the settlement of Rogden v. CCSF. 



I. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 12:12 P.M. to go into closed session. 



U>^(y</^// ■> 



Ttr' 

Jean Caramattl 
(Commission Secretary 
Minutes. November 3. 1992, Page 3 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



NO^MBER 17, 1 



DOC! imfm to r ""°T. 
DEC 1 8 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 

MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

November 17, 1992 

CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Special meeting of 

October 27, 1992 and the 

Reconvened meeting of 

October 29, 1992 92-0288 3 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 3-4 

F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Supplemental Appropriation of 

Proceeds of Refunding Bonds 92-0289 4 

2. Resolution Providing for Issuance 

of $2.4-Billion in Bonds 92-0290 4-7 

3. $2 . 4-Bi 1 1 ion Supplemental 
Appropriation of Airport Master 

Plan Bond Proceeds 92-0291 4-7 

4. Reimbursement Resolution 92-0292 4-7 

5. Supplemental Appropriation to 
Fund 9 Positions Needed for the 
Implementation of the Airport 

Master Plan 92-0293 7-8 

6. Approval of Advance Agreement 92-0294 8 



Bid Call - Contract No. 3204 - 

Parking Garage - Replacement of 

Standby Generator 92-0295 8-9 

Bid Rejection - Contract 3161 - 

International Terminal Upper 

Level Road Leak Repairs 92-0296 9 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Award of Contract 3017 - 

International Terminal F.I.S. 

Carpet Replacement & Painting 92-0297 9 

10. Award Professional Services 
Contract - Airport Medical 

Examiner 92-0298 9 

11. Correction: Handicapped Parking 

Rates in the Garage 92-0299 9 

12. Travel/Training - FY 1992/93 92-0300 9 

13. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 92-0301 9 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

14. Taxi Fee Increase 9-14 

I. NEW BUSINESS: 14 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 15 

K. CLOSED SESSION: 

Personnel Matters 15 

I ADJOURNMENT: 15 



Minutes. November 17, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 17, 1992 

CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:07 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 

James K. Ho 

Marie K. Brooks 

L. Andrew Jeanpierre 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of October 27, 1992 and the reconvened 
meeting of October 29, 1992 were adopted by order of the Commission 
President. 

No. 92-0288 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0287 at the closed session of 
November 17. 1992. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Brooks asked for the status of Quake City Shuttle. 
Minutes, November 17, 1992. Page 3 



Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, explained that twenty-three (23) 
companies currently operate upstairs. These companies operate about 330 
vehicles at 25-30% capacity. Staff believes the operation could be 
handled with about half the vans. Because of the number of companies 
involved staff approached the Commission earlier this year and received 
authority to work out a request for proposals to bid out the van space. 
This request arose because of the competition between the companies and 
because the drivers were having fights among themselves over passengers. 

Mr. Fein said that in October the Commission approved the RFP. Invitations 
to attend a November 18 meeting were mailed out to all companies on October 
23. In the meantime eight companies, Quake City Shuttle being one of them, 
have called and asked for additional permits to operate. The policy has 
been to hold their requests in abeyance until staff has had the opportunity 
to work with the companies and come up with the final details for the RFP. 
The bid is scheduled to appear before the Commission on December 15. 

Mr. Fein said that staff has told Quake City that additional vehicles are 
not required at this time. 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were adopted unanimously. 

1 . Supplemental Appropriation of Proceeds of Refunding Bonds 

No. 92-0289 Request for supplemental appropriation 

of the proceeds of the Issue 2 
refunding bonds. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance 
explained that this is the next step for the recently sold Issue 2 
which refunded Series D revenue bonds. This is a supplemental to get 
the funds in the appropriate places so that the escrow fund can be 
set up and funds can be allocated where they belong. 



Item nos. 2, 3 and 4 were called at one time. 

2. Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $2,400,000.000 in Bonds 

No. 92-0290 Second supplemental resolution 

providing for the issuance of not to 
exceed $2 . 4-b i 1 1 i on aggregate principa' 
amount of San Francisco International 
Airport Second Series Revenue Bonds. 



Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 4 



Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $2,400,000,000 in Bonds 

No. 92-0291 Second supplemental resolution 

providing for the issuance of not to 
exceed $2.4-billion aggregate principal 
amount of San Francisco International 
Airport Second Series Revenue Bonds. 



$2.4 Billion Supplemental Appropriation of Airport Master Plan Bond 
Proceeds 

No. 92-0292 



Reimbursement Resolution 

No. 92-0293 Resolution stating official intent to 

•-eimburse capital funds for Master Plan 
costs upon issuance of Master Plan 
bonds. 

Ms. Gittens said that because of the changes in the tax laws staff is 
asking for one overall resolution for the entire program, unlike 
previous capital project financings where staff comes at the time the 
funds are needed and asks the Commission for the series of approvals. 
Staff will return when the funds are needed for the preliminary 
official statement resolutions. Airline approval will be obtained 
for each bond issue. Staff is looking for a way to reduce the time 
frame on each specific bond issue. 

Ms. Gittens explained that the tax law change in question requires 
industrial development bond issuers like ourselves to spend all our 
bond proceeds within six months. On the other hand, the City and 
County of San Francisco Charter requires the funds to be on hand 
before we advertise for bids. Given the time frame for advertising 
for bids, the bidding process, protests, etc. it takes approximately 
two months to even get started to spend money. We must also have the 
total funds on hand for the total contract amount. 

Mr. Gittens said that staff is currently working out a different 
process with the Controller, but until that time if we have a 
$50-mi 1 1 ion construction contract we have to have $50-million in the 
bank in the right account before the contract can be bid. It makes 
it difficult to spend all the proceeds in six months. If all of the 
proceeds are not spent within six months we pay a penalty to the IRS 
until the funds are spent. In an attempt to try to minim :e that 
penalty and to make sure our capital program stays on track we are 
trying to get at least this resolution done up front. That will be 
one less item to deal with with each specific bond issue. 

Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 5 



Ms. Gittens explained that the airlines have approved the advance 
payment to the City. One of the considerations for that approval was 
to give the airlines additional input into master plan projects. The 
schedule will have to be reviewed again because the airlines will get 
an additional meeting notice period. 

Ms. Gittens said that the first sale is expected to take place around 
February. The Commission will see an official statement either in 
December or January for the first bond issue. There will be 
approximately 12 separate issues between February and November, 1995. 

Commissioner Mattison asked what the ranges of the issues will be. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the first one will be about $1 00-mi 1 1 i on . 
The issues will range from $1 00-mi 1 1 i on to approximately $400-mi 1 1 ion. 

Commissioner Mattison asked about the six month approval and the 
impl ications. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the Airport is paying approximately 
$125,000 in penalties every six months on the remaining $40-million 
in the previous $1 00-mi 1 1 ion Series E. 

Commissioner Brooks asked what happens if we ask for less than what 
we need. 

Ms. Gittens responded that a bid call can be issued. If a bid call 
is issued with a budget of $20-mi 1 1 ion and the bids came in at 
$21 -mi 1 1 ion , under the circumstances if we only had $20-million in 
the bank we would have to cancel the bid. We often do that anyway 
but this would mean that the project manager and the Commission would 
not have the option. 

Commissioner Murphy noted that we are obviously going to borrow a lot 
of money for this project during a period of relatively attractive 
interest rates. Other than proceeding expeditiously, there is no way 
to lock in these rates for the whole project. We can't borrow the 
entire amount of the project now. 

Ms. Gittens responded that we can but we would pay penalties and 
that's the whole point. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if a financial analysis has been done on 
interest rate protection. We may regret not takinr interest rate 
protection measures now. It may turn out to be cheaper to pay 
penalties and lock into the kind of rates we have now. It is worth 
i t to do an analysi s . 

Ms. Gittens said that staff has been analyzing that option. The 
other side to it is that most of the borrowing will be taking place 
within about a year to a year and a half. Additionally, some of these 
issues will be taxable and we need to separate those projects. 



Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 6 



Commissioner Ho asked what interest rate staff was using to analyze 
the project. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it is between 6-1/2 and 7%. 

Commissioner Mattison asked where staff expected the current issue to 
come in. 

Ms. Gittens responded that for the taxable issues we are assuming 
about 7-12. The first issue will be about 6.4. 

Commissioner Ho said that we are expecting a rate of about 6.4 for 
the first issue. The average interest rate for the term being used 
to analyze the project is between 6-1/2 to 7. So, we are expecting 
that the rates will not go over 7% during the 18 months of borrowing. 

Ms. Gittens responded that there is mix in the type of bonds. There 
is the non AMT bonds which are projects that are being financed where 
because of the type of project the bond holder is not subject to the 
alternative minimum tax. Those would have the lowest rates. 
Depending on the time frame, they might go down to 6.2 or 6.3. The 
AMT bonds will be the first two series. The bond holder is subject 
to the alternative minimum tax so those go for a higher amount. Then 
there are the taxable bonds which go higher still. 

Ms. Gittens explained that it is the mix of the bonds, the timing and 
the financial advisors projections as to what interest rates may be 
that have caused us to make these projections. 

Ms. Gittens explained that there are various conservative to liberal 
assumptions with the interest rate being one of them and the type of 
bond being another, and the timing and amount of capitalized interest 
being others. At this point we are projecting the contingency on the 
projects themselves. 

Commissioner Mattison said that this master resolution really is an 
authorization to proceed. Staff can still come back and discuss them 
individually so he doesn't have a problem with it. He said he would 
like some feedback on the tentative strategy or whether it's 
appropriate to consider some strategy for capitalizing interest 
protection. 



5. Supplemental Appropriation to Fund 9 Positions Needed for the 
Implementation of the Airport Master Plan 

No. 92-0294 Resolution authorizing the Director of 

Airports to request from the Mayor and 
Board of Supervisors a supplemental 
appropriation for 9 new positions 
needed to implement the Airport Master 
Plan. 

Minutes, November 17, 1992. Page 7 



Mr. Turpen explained that the nine positions will be in the project 
areas. One will monitor the mitigation program which the Commission 
recently incorporated into the master plan. Another position will go 
for financial accounting matters. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if the figure was an annual amount. 

Ms. Gittens responded that this is from January through June. 



6. Approval of Advance Agreement 

No. 92-0295 Agreement to advance the City a sum of 

$25 million, to be repaid with 
interest, from future Annual Service 
Payments. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if all the airlines were on board. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they were. 

Commissioner Murphy said that staff did well. 

Mr. Turpen said that it was a team effort. A lot of credit goes to 
many people in the airline community who understood the situation and 
wanted to help. The City Attorney's Office, working with a number of 
other people, created a vehicle with which to accomplish this. 

Commissioner Ho asked what interest rate we will be getting. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it is the higher of the pool fund rate of 
our funds or the bond issue rate. The range is between 6-1/2 and 77.. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if there have been any major changes in the 
agreement. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the agreement has remained static for the 
last couple of weeks. 

Commissioner Murphy said that a charter amendment has been proposed 
in Los Angeles which prohibit money from being transferred from the 
airport to various civic needs unless Federal law is changed. 

Mr. Turpen said that the City Charter was changed in 1980. That 
action paved the way for the management fee which was structured in 
the current airline lease agreement and resulted in the opportunity 
before us today. Our activity was grandfathered prior to Federal law. 



Bid Call - Contract No. 3204 

Parking Garage - Replacement of Standby Generator 

Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 8 



No. 92-0296 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract 3204 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



Bid Rejection for Contract No. 3161 

International Terminal Upper Level Road Leak Repairs 

No. 92-0297 Resolution authorizing rejection of 

bids for Contract No. 3161 and 
authorizing the Airport Director to 
advertise for rebid when ready. 

Commissioner Mattison asked why they were so far over. He asked if 
this projetc was more complicated. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities Operations and 
Maintenance responded that it is not. The bid that came in was a 
last minute bid. Staff is assuming that the contractor thought he 
could steal the bid. He said that this is not in the Airports best 
interest and recommended rejecting the bid. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 9 through 13 were adopted unanimously. 

9. Award of Contract No. 3017 

International Terminal F.I.S. Carpet Replacement and Painting 

No. 92-0298 Resolution awarding Contract 3017 to 

American Contract Interiors, Inc., in 
the amount of $81 ,000.00. 



10. Award of Professional Services Contract 

No. 92-0299 Award Professional Services Contract to 

Seton Medical Center to act as the 
Airport Medical Examiner for an amount 
of $160,000. 



Minutes, November 17, 1992. Page 9 



1 1 . Correction: Handicapped Parking Rates in the Garage 

No. 92-0300 Resolution approving correction to the 

Schedule of Handicapped Parking Rate 
in the garage. 



12. Travel/Training for Fiscal Year 1992/93 
No. 92-0301 

13. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 92-0302 Resolution, in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was called to order at 9:33 AM. There being no other 
speakers the hearing recessed at 9:57 AM until further notice. 

14. Public Hearing: Taxi Fee Increase 

Proposal to increase the taxi fee from 
$1 .50 to $2.50. 

Mr. Turpen said that the people who are about to testify are aware of the 
staff proposal. Since 1977 the exit rate for taxis at the Airport has 
been $1.50. That $1.50 today would be worth $3.50. 

Mr. Phil Sterlin, cab driver, said that he did not feel that the taxi 
parking increase was valid. The cab drivers get very little or nothing 
for the $1.50 they currently pay. The system at the Airport is very 
disorganized. It took cab drivers over 12 years to get a bathroom. 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Sterlin what he thought could be done to 
make it better. 

Mr. Sterlin thought that the fourth floor would be a better location. From 
there the drivers can see where taxis are needed. He said that there is 
very little communication between the starters and the Burns guards. The 
drivers are left waiting in line out on the freeway when there is room for 
them in the garage. He said that the whcle system is poorly planned. If 

Minutes, November 17. 1992, Page 10 



the drivers could see where taxis are needed they could dispatch 
themselves. They would also be able to see if the lot is full. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if there were any other amenities such as food 
service. 

Mr. Sterlin said that there is a truck that sells food but additional 
trucks would provide more variety. He did not think it was fair. 

Mr. Sterlin said that the drivers need a more organized system so they can 
get to the customers. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if the starters were able to communicate with 
the drivers. 

Mr. Sterlin responded that they use walkie talkies. They communicate with 
each other but there are a lot of problems, i.e. other drivers sneaking in 
and picking up passengers. He said that the entire process of getting to 
the customer is a poorly organized filter system. He does not believe 
that raising the fee another $1.00 would make it any more efficient for 
the customer or cab driver. 

Mr. Charles Shepherd, City Cab driver, said that he does not feel that 
drivers should have to pay more for the service they receive. He said 
that if a driver gets a couple of shorts to San Bruno or San Mateo the day 
is about shot. A driver can wait in the lot for two hours, get a fair to 
San Mateo for $10.00 or $12.00 and if traffic is heavy the driver can't 
even make a short out of it. 

Mr. Ricmond Loewinsohn, cab driver affiliated with the United Taxicab 
Workers, said that there are players who specialize in the Airport. He 
estimated that each driver works a little over 200 shifts per year. The 
Airport player will go four to six times. Multiplied by 200 it is over 
$1 ,000.00 in income. 

Mr. Loewinsohn said that when large conventions come to San Francisco they 
are transported to and from the Airport by bus and to and from the 
convention and restaurants by bus. 

Mr. Loewinsohn asked that this item be continued in order to give the cab 
drivers an opportunity to meet with staff. 

Mr. Loewinsohn told the Commission that there is a great deal of corruption 
at the Airport. Drivers pay $5.00 extra to the starters and get in for 
free. Starters also get money from limousines and shuttles. Cab drivers 
have heard starters tell passengers to go to the upper level and take a 
shuttle. They hold the cab drivers back. He said that starters have the 
easiest job in the world and they screw it up. 

Mr. Loewinsohn asked that the fee be reduced, not raised. 

Commissioner Mattison told Mr. Loewinsohn that he was making some serious 
charges and asked if he was inclined to bring criminal charges. He 
suggested that Mr. Loewinsohn bring a video camera to the Airport. 
Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 11 



Mr. Loewinsohn responded that the United Taxicab Workers need money to 
monitor what's going on at the Airport and to operate sting operations. 
He said that the Airport Police are totally corrupt. He said that one 
starter-was fired after the San Francisco Police Department operated a 
sting operation, He was back, four years later. 

Commissioner Brooks asked when their last taxi rate increase was. 

Mr. Loewinsohn responded that their last increase was recent. They were 
given two 20% increases in their gates, or cab rental fee. The two 2C7. 
increases by his company more than ate the rate increases. 

Ms. Shelley Kessler, San Mateo Central Labor Council and Airport Labor 
Coalition, told the Commission that she was speaking on behalf of the cab 
drivers. The drivers just learned about this increase in the last week. 
They would like a continuance in order to meet with staff and determine if 
there are any other ways to deal with the increases and understand how the 
money is flowing. She said that they are being hit constantly with 
different fee increases at various levels. Staff may not be aware of all 
those increases. The drivers would like the opportunity to work out some 
of these problems. 

Ms. Kessler said that cab drivers provide a valuable service for the 
Airport and the San Francisco Bay Area. They have been hit very hard 
lately and they would like to be able to maintain their livelihood. Ms. 
Kessler noted that Mr. Turpen is always willing to meet with the public on 
issues affecting them. 

Mr. Clifford O'Neil, Coordinator of United Taxicab Workers who are part of 
Communications Workers of America, reemphasized that for drivers who go 
through this lot four times a day, this increase will represent a decrease 
in earnings of $1,000.00 per year. These drivers work as independent 
contractors without any benefits. This is a huge increase for them. He 
asked for the oportunity to sit down with staff and go over the figures. 
He asked the Commission to reconsider. 

Mr. Al Hall said that City Cab received this last Friday. He said that 
the reason the Commission had speakers this morning was because he got 
copies out himself. They've had no time to prepare. 

Mr. Hall said that the gas fumes in the holding lot has been severe. When 
they were moved inside they were told it would be on a temporary basis. 
The cabs were moved from the South Terminal so that it could be expanded. 
They were told that they would either go back outside or up on the roof so 
that the gas fumes would not be a problem. That never happened. 

Mr. Hall said that it took 12 years to get restroom facilities. For the 
last three years he has been asking Landside staff, AMPCO management and 
Mr. Turpen to consider populating the stand at Delta Air Lines with taxis 
rather than putting a buzzer there. When Delta was in the North Terminal 
it was one of their busiest airlines. They wondered why they saw such an 
immediate decline in the amount of taxi traffic. When they did an 
investigation the firs thing they found was that the signage inside the 

Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 12 



terminal was incorrectly directing passengers at Delta further down the 
terminal to the USAir. Landside staff was notified and it was corrected. 
The drivers feel that if the stand is moved forward slightly and populated 
with taxis it would provide a line of sight for Delta Air Lines passengers 
and facilitate their ability to get taxis. It would eliminate the kind of 
problems to which Mr. Loewinsohn referred. He said that that area is also 
used to stage limousines. 

Mr. Hall said that by having a stand at Delta it would allow a line of 
sight to the International Terminal as well. He felt that a few simple 
changes would greatly facilitate the ability of taxis to flow through the 
Airport without the congestion problems that currently exist 

Mr. Hall concluded by saying that the drivers were not given enough time to 
prepare a response. Finally, the two taxi driver organizations did not 
receive notice of this item. 

Mr. Ed Burke, DeSoto Cab, told the Commission that taxicabs are a great 
asset to the community. He said that he would like to see these problems 
resolved. A system must be instituted where cab drivers would self start. 
He said that there are no starters on hotel stands. The same system 
should be used at the Airport. It would be in the cab driver's best 
interest to make it work. If the starters are eliminated it would save 
the Airport money and there would no longer be a need for a fee increase. 

Mr. Burke said that since cab drivers don't have a line of sight they have 
to depend on the starters. He said that a lot of the starters are fine 
but there are some who create problems. Stands could be placed in such a 
way so that the drivers could see all the way around the terminal area. 

Mr. Burke said that before they moved into the lower lot they got their 
tickets upon entering. Now they get them when they exit the lot. That 
slows down the operation. He encouraged the Commission to allow the 
drivers to self start. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this item is not for action today. 

Commissioner Murphy recommended leaving this open and giving it more time. 

Commissioner Mattison did not see a need to rush this. As there hasn't 
been an increase since 1977, we can wait another month or two. He said 
that some people were more concerned about the impact on the bottom line, 
although it has been a long time coming. He told Mr. Turpen that whatever 
insights he can give the Commission on the way the system works, i.e. is 
it working as intended 9 Is the quality of what we are providing for the 
money satisfactory? He said that the assessment would be totally apart 
from the financial analysis. No one can deny that $1.00 increase after 15 
years is not out of line. It's a question of what it's paying for, is it 
worth it and are we happy with what we have. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff would prepare a briefing memo to provide 
history going back to the days when cabs were outside adjacent to the 
South Terminal and then went into the garage. 

Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 13 



Commissioner Mattison felt that the rationale of going to a control system 
is still strong. In virtually any airport across the country you will 
know the difference between the swarming system, which is total chaos, and 
a system which really works. Frustration is built into a control system. 
The only way to eleviate frustration is to try make it as continually 
responsive and dynamic as possible. It will never be perfect in terms of 
the quality of facilities, venti 1 lation, toilets, food concessions, 
timeliness, training and responsiveness of the starters to make it work. 

Commissioner Murphy felt it would be helpful to look at what's being done 
at LAX. He has had long, long waits for cabs there. Although he is not 
advocating the system, he is more interested in their financial 
arrangement. 

Commissioner Mattison said that the fee is built into the fare. He said 
he would not advocate it but would be interested in looking at it. 

Commissioner Brooks suggested that the air quality issue be researched. 

Commissioner Murphy suggested providing free smog control device checks. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was done once and it discovered that 90% of 
the smog control devices had been disconnected. That launched the Airport 
in its safety inspection program on taxis, etc. 

Commissioner Ho asked for more information on the starter system. 

Mr. Turpen said that he would be happy to prepare a report for the 
Commission on the history, the issues that have surfaced and how they have 
been responded to over the years. The report will also include the 
integrity of the system and the taxi fare increases in San Francisco. 

Ms. Shelley Kessler asked that in addition to the report that staff set 
aside some time to meet with taxi cab representatives prior to the next 
meeting. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that interested parties contact Sheldon Fein. 

Commissioner Murphy announced that the hearing will remain open until 
further notice. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



Minutes, November 17. 1992. Page 14 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



* * * 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54957 to discuss personnel matters. 



* * * 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:58 AM in order to go into closed session. 




*~4-tCi 



Jean Caramatti 
lommission Secretary 



Minutes, November 17, 1992, Page 15 



/ SAN FRANCISCO 
'AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DC"*' '"-kits DEPT, 
JAN 14 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



\ 



DECEMBER 1, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 

J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L ANDREW JEANP1ERRE 

JAMES K. HO 

MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 






of the Minutes 






Airports Commission 






December 1 , 1992 


CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 

NUMBER PAGE 



C ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

November 3, 1992 92-0303 3 

D- ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

E- DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1- Administrative Changes Affecting 

Free Speech Activities 4-8 

F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 8 

G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Award of Boarding Area E Principal 

Concession Retail Lease 92-0304 9 

3. Funding Match Sought for CalTrain 

- SFO Shuttle 92-0305 9-10 

4. Request for Proposals for Media 
Campaign to Promote Ground 

Transportation Services 92-0306 10 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Mod. No. 9 of Agreement with Hanson, 

Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy 92-0307 11 



Authorization to Issue Request 

for Proposals - Agreement for 

Operator-Assisted Long Distance 

Service from Public Pay 

Telephones 92-0308 11 

Thomas Cook Foreign Currency 

Services, Inc. - Mod. of Lease 92-0309 11 

Declaration of Emergency - Contract 

Contract 3203 - International 

Terminal Emergency Roof Repair - 

Evaluation 92-0310 11 

Declaration of Emergency - Contract 

Contract 3201 - Emergency Repairs, 

Power Distribution System, Plot 

7 and Vicinity 92-0311 12 

NEW BUSINESS: 

Quake City Shuttle 12-14 

CORRESPONDENCE: 15 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 

Potential Litigation 15 

L. ADJOURNMENT: 15 



Minutes, December 1. 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 1 , 1992 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:05 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Absent 



Patrick. A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 

L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

Marie K. Brooks arrived at 9:07 AM 

James K. Ho 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The regular meeting of November 3, 1992 were adopted by order of the 
Commission President. 

No. 92-0303 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
92-0302 affirming the appointment of 
Mara Rosales-Cordova as Airports 
General Counsel at the closed session 
of Nov. 17, 1992. 



Minutes, December 1. 1992, Page 3 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Administrative Changes Affecting Free Speech Activities 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director said that this issue has been before 
the Commission on numerous occasions. Mr. Reuben Davis has been 
before the Commission to express his concerns. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has before it some recommended 
changes to the manner in which the Airport conducts its relationship 
with persons desiring to use the booths at the Airport. 

Commissioner Murphy called on Mr. Kurt Cathy, Japanese-American Daily 
News reporter. Formerly a tour guide, he said that he interpreted on 
occasion. He said that during his college years he worked at SFO 
daily as a tour guide. He is fluent in Japanese and reads and writes 
the language. He dealt with Japanese tourists on a daily basis at 
SFO. 

Mr Cathy said that he was in contact with the charities quite a bit 
from 1987 to 1991 but had not been to SFO for some time. Mr. Reuben 
Davis called him with his complaints about six weeks ago. 

Mr. Cathy said that he began researching the charities. He said that 
he disagrees with Mr. Davis and does not believe that the charities 
should be closed down. Of all the charities he approached at the 
Airport the Sisters of Compassion were very open. They told him 
everything he wanted to know and followed it up by sending him an 
information packet and telephoning him. 

Mr. Cathy said when he to SFO to investigate the problem he posed as 
a traveller. He was appalled at the way he was approached. He said 
that they called to him and showed him a photo of a starving Indian 
woman. Then he was asked for money. He said that he asked the 
solicitor, a woman, for a pamphlet so that he could make a wise 
charitable donation. He wasn't just going to hand over money to 
someone behind a booth. He wanted to know what the charity was about 

Mr. Cathy said that the solicitor sneared at him and asked for at 
least $1.00. The charitable organization in question was Community 
Relief Services. He noted that the list of charities provided by Mr. 
Davis said Relife. He did not know if it was a typo or if they were 
playing games with the name. 

Mr. Cathy said that he approached the Bhakti vedanta Fellowship as a 
news reporter and was snubbed. He then attempted to locate a phone 
number but the only number he found was a residential listing under 
Bhaktivedanta, A.C. He called the number and the telephone was 
answered "B.I." He was told that although it is a residential 
number, it is the Bhaktivedanta Institute. Mr. Cathy said that he 
asked the individual if he was associated with the Bhaktivedanta 
Fellowship but was told that he was not. He was then asked if he 
would like to make a donation. He replied that he would but would 

Minutes. December 1, 1992. Page 4 



like to speak with someone in charge of donations. He was given 
another number to call in San Francisco. That number was for another 
Bhaktivedanta Institute but he was unable to find anyone responsible 
for the Bhaktivedanta Fellowship that solicits money at the Airport. 

Mr. Cathy understood that the Airport is limited in its ability to 
research where the money goes after it is donated. All that can be 
done is to determine if they are an established charity by the State. 

Mr. Cathy thought that the recommendations set forth are very good. 
He asked how the public service announcement would go out. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it would probably go over the P. A. system 
and may be confined to specific areas. 

Mr. Cathy thought that was going out of the way to do something about 
these charities. He questioned whether the charities are bogus. He 
wondered why they won't speak to him, not as a member of the press 
but as someone who is genuinely interested. He said that he wouldn't 
write an article, he just wanted to talk to them. 

Mr. Cathy said that from late 1987 to 1991 he was asked a dozen times 
by Japanese tourists if San Francisco had an airport tax. He told 
them that SFO did not have a tax. He said that on a couple of 
occasions tourists told him that they had paid a tax but he never 
thought anything about it. He was told by Mr. Davis that people are 
posing as Airport officials and requesting an Airport tax and that 
passengers are paying it. Mr. Davis has an incident on video tape in 
which a Japanese girl offers $1.00 and they ask her $20.00. She then 
takes out a traveller's check and signs it. 

Mr. Cathy said that these people are being approached by what they 
believe to be Airport officials asking for an Airport tax. They 
don't know the difference. 

Mr. Cathy asked if they are there for free speech or freedom of 
religion. He felt that the guidelines differ from what he believed 
freedom of speech to be. 

Ms. Mara Rosales, Airports General Counsel, responded that they are 
there for freedom of speech. 

Mr. Cathy asked if the arguments in the Circuit Court ruling in New 
York City were based on freedom of speech. 

Commissioner Murphy reminded Mr. Cathy of the Commission's 
three-minute rule. He told Mr. Cathy that he understood the point he 
was making. He said that Mr. Davis showed him his article. 

Commisioner Murphy asked Mr. Davis if he wished to address the 
Commi ssion . 

Mr. Reuben Davis said that yesterday he received a hand delivered 

Minutes, December 1, 1992. Page 5 



letter from the Airport informing him of the meeting today on free 
speech. He said that if all the complainants attended this meeting 
the room would be too small. Candlestick Park would be needed. 

Mr. Davis said that Mr. Turpen told him yesterday that persons must 
be licensed for free speech at SFO. He thought that free speech was 
readily available to everyone in American under the Constitution. He 
thought that Mr. Turpen was trying to imply that a license was 
required for freedom of speech on religious grounds. 

Mr. Davis said that Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and other 
evangelists were given the freedom of speech to preach their religious 
beliefs. But this occured in a religious facility or on television. 
He said that he did not know of a single preacher who wanted to use an 
airport as a forum to preach their religion. In June 1992 the Supreme 
Court determined that an airport is not intended for that purpose. 
He said that Mr. Turpen obviously disagrees with that determination. 

Mr. Davis invited the Commission to view his video tape which depicts 
the true purpose of individuals occupying the free speech booths. He 
said that it is well worth noting that not a single notice referring 
to any religion is displayed by the solicitors. 

Mr. Davis agrees that every person has the right to speak about their 
religious beliefs but he strongly disapproves of the Airport being 
used as a forum for solicitation. He agreed with the determination 
of the Supreme Court. He said that in all fairness he felt that the 
Airports Commission should ask Ron Wilson, an Airport official who is 
in the forefront of this matter. He said that Mr. Wilson Is well 
respected and held in high esteem by all personnel and authoratative 
bodies using the Airport. He said that Mr. Wilson told him that he 
had numerous complaints from passengers and Airport personnel about 
being harrassed and solicited for money at the Airport. Mr. Davis 
said that Mr. Wilson told him that in view of the amount of 
complaints he has received he would be very surprised to see them 
still soliciting at the Airport after Christmas. 

Mr. Davis said that these people have a million dollar, all cash, tax 
free business. He does not understand why the Director allows these 
activities to continue. 

Mr. Davis referred to paragraphs 1 and 3 of the recommendation 
prepared by Mara Rosales. The changes the Director recommends will 
make it absolutely clear that soliciting for money and pamphleting is 
in no way endorsed by authorities. He argued that issuing a license 
for the purpose of soliciting passengers is contradictory to her 
recommendations. He said that the solution is simple - stop issuing 
licenses because they are an endorsement for these people. 

Commissioner Murphy asked in what languages the signage in the booths 
would appear. He assumed it would appear in languages additional to 
Engl i sh. 

Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen responded that it appears in additional languages now. A 
disclaimer is currently being reviewed. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre asked if the Port has similar situations. 

Ms. Rosales responded that she was not sure. 

Commissioner Murphy felt that Mr. Davis was right. This is just a 
fundraising activity and most of these people are not legitimate. 
Perhaps one or two of them are. 

Commissioner Mattison asked about the scope of the Airport's authority 
regarding licensing and the need to acceed to the presence of these 
people at the Airport. He felt that if they are going to be there 
it's better to have some control than to have them free ranging over 
the entire faci 1 i ty. 

Ms. Rosales responded that she would prefer to set forth the authority 
in an attorney-client communication. This goes beyond this First 
Amendment case that has been referred to. Essentially the scope of 
the Commission's authority under the Free Speech clauses of the 
California Constitution are interpreted differently by the California 
Courts. Since we are a government body in California we have to 
comply not only with the Federal standard but with the State standard 
as well. The State standard is stricter. 

Commissioner Mattison asked what authority the Airport has to eject 
people who leave the booth or don't enter it and solicit money. 

Ms. Rosales responded that the Commission has adopted Rules and 
Regulations that state that all solicitation activities are confined 
to the booths. That authority is pursuant to our interpretation of 
the First Amendment clause and the Free Speech clause of the 
California Constitution ... i.e., reasonable time, place and manner 
restrictions on the manner in which solicitations occur at the 
Airport. So, the Airport can confine solicitation activities to 
booths. 

Commissioner Mattison assumed that the best judgment is that it can 
not be prohibited altogether at this point. 

Ms. Rosales responded that she would rather respond in a confidential 
communication, but her view is that it would be difficult to prohibit 
it altogether under the current California law. 

Commissioner Mattison said that the Commission would like to be as 
informed as possible on that particular issue. 

Commissioner Mattison felt that the signage needs to be more overt 
and multi-lingual. The disclaimer should be more forthcoming and 
obvious so that it is hard to avoid. He felt that the public service 
announcement being proposed should also be in writing and made a part 
of the disclaimer associated with the booth physically. He was not 

Minutes, December 1 , 1992, Page 7 



persuaded that the public service announcement over the P. A. is an 
effective move. Rather, it is just one more assault in the din that 
goes on at the Airport. He felt that 80 or 90% of the people at the 
Airport do not even know the booths exist. Nothing will be served by 
subjecting the entire Airport to an on-going public announcement. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if it would be possible to target those 
annoucements to the International arrivals area. 

Commissioner Mattison suggested putting it in a speaker system to be 
located near the booths so that it is heard in the vicinity of the 
booths but not all over the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it can be segmented. 

Commissioner Murphy agreed that he did not want to add to the list of 
announcements made Airport-wide. Passengers should be told as they 
enter the International arrivals area. He noted that departure taxes 
are collected over most of Asia. 

Commissioner Mattison said that it would be more straightforward if 
JAL and all other airlines provided information on what passengers 
are about to confront. That would have his blessing. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if the location in the International 
Terminal is pretty much where it needs to be. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that subject has been addressed rather 
exhaustively and has resulted in the existing location. 

Commissioner Murphy said that if there is a right to regulate there 
is a reasonableness requirement in that right. 

Commissioner Jeanpierre asked if the airlines could make announcements 
as their passengers enter the Airport. 

Commissioner Murphy felt that it would help tremendously if the booth 
looked very commercial and unlike an official part of the Airport. 

Commissioner Murphy asked that this be calendared as a formal item at 
the next meeting. He would like something done before Christmas. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 8 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item no. 2 was adopted unanimously. 

2. Award of Boarding Area "E" Principal Concession Retail Lease 

No. 92-0304 Resolution awarding the Boarding Area 

"E" Principal Concession Retail Lease 
to the DELSTAR Group. 

Commissioner Murphy asked about the term of the lease. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
responded that it is a five year term without option. 

Mr. Turpen added that five years is standard. He said that at one 
time the Commission liked options. 



Item no. 3 was adopted unanimously as amended. 

3. Funding Match Sought for Cal train - SFO Shuttle 

No. 92-0305 The Airport would contribute 80% of the 

operational cost estimated at $223,200. 
annually for the on-Airport portion of 
the service and would promote the 
service through the media and Airport 
tenants. The other 20X of operational 
costs for the off-Airport portion of 
the route would be sought from either 
SamTrans' shuttle fund program or from 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (BAAQMD) under AB 434 funds, 
California Clean Air legislation. 

Commissioner Brooks asked how many passengers would use this. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he did not believe it was designed as much 
for passengers as for employees. He did not know how many employees 
would use it. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is no way to get to SFO today other than 
by a rubber tired vehicle ... bus, car, van. About 18 months ago it 
occurred to staff that if the Airport could provide a link between 
CalTrain in Mi librae we might be able to enduce the 60 to 70% of 
Airport employees living in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties to 
take CalTrain and ride the Aiiport free shuttle. 

Mr Turpen said that CalTrain agreed to extend their zone fee beyond 
Burlingame to Millbrae. The Airport took a look at running a shuttle 
that would meet every CalTrain arrival in Millbrae so that there would 

Minutes. December 1, 1992, Page 9 



be no wait for Airport employees, particularly during off hours. 
Employees will take the shuttle from Mi librae station onto Airport 
property, along the frontage road through the terminals, out to the 
United Maintenance Base and back. 

Mr. Turpen said that we couldn't get anyone outside of SFO to fund 
the program. The funding impediment is what caused the delay in 
implementing this program. The Airport can spend money on Airport 
but we do not have the ability to spend money off Airport for this 
type of activity. The funding match, where the Airport will pay for 
the portion conducted on Airport, has been ruled to be permissible. 

Mr. Turpen said that there will be a major marketing effort through 
the airlines to the 31,000 employees. 

Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, said that a survey was 
conducted a year and a half ago but he did not remember what the 
numbers were. He said that people tend to tell you that they will 
use the service, but when it is implemented they may not. 

Mr. Turpen said that it will be abandoned if it proves not to be 
worthwhi le. 

Commissioner Murphy said that it is a worthwhile experiment. This, 
in essence, is what Dr. Cross has been talking about. 

Mr. Turpen said that Dr. Cross was quite excited about the proposal. 

Commissioner Mattison noted that the resolution simply seeks funds. 
It is not an authorization to move ahead with a one-year pilot. 

Mr. Turpen said that the resolution can be amended to reflect the 
pilot program concept. If the program is successful staff will return 
to the Commission after the one year. He said that the funding will 
come before the Commission as part of the annual budget appropriation. 
He would be happy to amend the resolution to indicate a one-year test 
from inception with a report back to the Commission. 



Item no. 4 was adopted unanimously. 

4. Request for Proposals for Media Campaign to Promote Ground 
Transportation Services 

No. 92-0306 Resolution authorizing Airport staff 

to hold a Pre-Proposal Conference to 
contract for media services to promote 
Airport Ground Transportation services 
An annual budget of $200,000 has been 
established to promote Ground 
Transportation services. 

Minutes, December I, 1992, Page 10 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Item nos. 5 through 9 were adopted unanimously. 

5. Modification No. 9 of Agreement with Hanson, Bridget, Marcus, Vlahos 
and Rudy 

No. 92-0307 Resolution approving Mod. No. 9 of 

Agreement with the law firm of Hanson, 
Bridgett, et al . to increase funding 
by the sum of $300,000. and to require 
compliance with the provision of the 
City's MBE/WBE/LBE Local Business 
Utilization Ordinance relating to the 
award of legal services contracts. 



Authorization to Issue Request for Proposals - Agreement for 
Operator-Assisted Long Distance Service from Public Pay Telephones 

No. 92-0308 Resolution authorizing staff to issue 

a Request for Proposals for the 
Operator-Assisted Long Distance Service 
from Public Pay Telephones Agreement. 

Commissioner Mattison asked how this linked to the action the 
Commission recently took related to all of the public telephones. 

Ms. Gittens responded that this would be the default carrier for the 
payphones. 



7. Thomas Cook Foreign Currency Services, Inc. - Modification of Lease 

No. 92-0309 Resolution modifying Lease No. 88-0053 

to add Thomas Cook's newly constructed 
booth and delete its old booth. 



Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3203 
International Terminal Emergency Roof Repair Evaluation 

No. 92-0310 Resolution ratifying Declaration of 

Emergency by the Commission President 
and authorizing the necessary immediate 
evaluation of the Terminal roof and 

cei 1 i ng . 

Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 11 



Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 3201 

Emergency Repairs, Power Distribution System, Plot 7 and Vicinity 

No. 92-0311 Resolution ratifying Declaration of 

Emergency by the President of the 
Commission and authorizing emergency 
repairs of the power distribution 
system at Plot 7 and vicinity. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Mr. Richard Pohl and Mr. Richard Soenksen of Quake City Shuttle addressed 
the Commission. 

Mr. Pohl said that he sent correspondence to the Commission several weeks 
ago requesting permission to operate more vehicles. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if he was requesting relief from the 
moratorium currently in effect pending the re-bid. 

Mr. Pohl said that he was. He said that a lot of the arguments proposed by 
staff were not relevant. The vehicles are controlled at the curb. It does 
not make any difference on congestion whether or not additional vehicles 
are operated. 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Pohl why more vehicles wouldn't cause 
congestion. 

Mr. Soenksen responded that the point in having more vehicles is to serve 
people who want to get to SFO but are currently being turned down. He 
said that the Airport regulates the vans at the terminals through 
rotations. Quake City will not be able to bring any more vans to the 
terminal through rotation. They will simply be dropping people off. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the vans were going back into the City empty. 

Mr. Soenksen responded that they will go back to the holding lot to wait 

the' 

the 

lowei 

ar 

bi 



UU i I I lc i } II uaiCU Ull ic i v i ny jmi i i ui 1 1. i j t_ w i 

are tied up doing hotel runs and requests fi 
not be available to serve the neighborhoods 



Commissioner Brooks noted that Mr. Pohl's letter mentioned the problem of 
vans being out of service. She asked if vans could be pulled from the 
lower level and used for upper level service. 

Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 12 



Mr. Fein responded that the companies have a number of vans that are 
authorized to operate. Those numbers take into account out of service 
vans. When Quake City said they did not have business from the Airport to 
the City but had a lot of reservations from the City to the Airport, staff 
told them that they would be given a different type of permit than they 
have. That permit will allow them to bring in additional vehicles. On 
leaving the Airport, however, they would only be able to handle those 
passengers that had prearranged reservations. In that way they would not 
interfere with the balance of the 23 companies operating upstairs. 

Mr. Fein said that there are many companies who have requested to operate 
upstaris. Some vehicles have up to a two hour wait in staging areas. He 
said that Mr. Pohl was told that he will be given a permit to bring 
passengers from the neighborhoods and return with only those passengers 
that had prearranged reservations. 

Commissioner Mattison asked Mr. Pohl if he would still keep the same 
number of permits that he currently has for the upper level. 

Mr. Fein said that that would remain the same. 

Mr. Fein said that there are over 300 vehicles and staff believes that 
half that number is needed. The vehicles seat eight people yet they are 
leaving the Airport with one or two passengers on average. They are in 
the staging area for two hours at a time. The staging area only holds 40 
vehicles so at times the lot overflows. 

Mr. Fein said that his office continues to receive requests for more 
vehicles on the theory that the more vans there are the more times a 
company will fall into rotation and the more passengers a company will 
pick up. He said that there are a couple of times a month when they have 
more people than they can handle with their existing vehicles. This is 
not any everyday occurrence. He feels that staff has provided an 
alternative way of handling those people. 

Mr. Pohl said that when he drives he does not spend very much time in the 
staging area. Quite often they have to pass on their rotation because 
they do not have a van available. As for the vans leaving empty, he did 
not believe that to be the case. He said that the past weekend was high 
volume with lines of people waiting and no vans available. He did not 
believe that cutting the number of vans in half would solve the problem. 
They have not built up a clientele that recognizes their vans. He said 
that because they have a large number of people coming from San Fr.-ncisco, 
the vans would drop off passengers but would more than likely return to 
the City with fewer people than if they had a chance in the rotation. 

Mr. Pohl said that they are a small company and they survive partially on 
the number of people they have coming from SFO. He felt that trying to 
operate two different services within their small company would not be 
feasible. 

Commissioner Mattison said that in light of the overabundance of vans he 
asked Mr. Pohl if the proposal made to him was forthcoming. He noted that 

Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 13 



the request for additional vehicles was primarily driven by Mr. Pohl's 
reservation business originating in the City. It is difficult for the 
Commission to get enthusiastic about Mr. Pohl's request that those same 
vehicles be moved into a pool that is already delicately balanced. 

Mr. Pohl said that those vans would only be used during peak periods. He 
thought that the lower level was more congested than the upper level. 

Mr. Soenksen said that he attended the pre-bid conferece two weeks ago. 
He said that there was some opposition to this proposed process. There 
are issues that need to be worked out. He said he would be very surprised 
if the schedule anticipated for this operation was met. The initial 
proposal was supposed to be released within 60 days of the Director's 
letter, and it took eight months. He said that they are locked into this 
position until this process works itself out. They are simply asking to 
be allowed to increase their business and make some money until this 
process changes. 

Commissioner Murphy asked why they were different from the other companies. 

Mr. Soenksen said that they are a small company. The proposal requires two 
carriers. If they are going to be a player they must increase their 
fleet, their services and their ability to participate in this proposal. 

Commissioner Mattison suggested that they need to forge some strategic 
alliances, which is something the Commission suggested some time ago. He 
suggested that Mr. Pohl may not want to add as many vehicles as he looks 
around for any likely merge or joint venture partners. 

Mr. Soenksen said that the market place would determine this. Given that 
they are a four van company they have a small share of it. They do a good 
business. They have had no complaints from their customers or the PUC. 
They simply want a fair chance to take part in the business at the Airport. 

Commissioner Mattison said that the Airport is ready to treat them equally 
with the other van companies having those similar characteristics and 
track record. 

Mr. Soenksen said that the Airport has a process by which it evaluates 
whether a company needs more vans or not. The Airport has seen the number 
of reservations Quake City has had to turn away. 

Commissioner Mattison said that while Quake City may not be completely 
happy with the response, staff heard their comments and responded to the 
problem. 

Commissioner Brooks said that they have been issued permits for the lower 
level so service could be provided to people in the City. 

Mr. Pohl said that economically it is one way service. It doesn't pay. 



Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 14 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



* * * 



K. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to discuss potential litigation. 



* * * 



L. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:50 AM. 




Jean Caramatti 
Amission Secretary 



Minutes, December 1, 1992, Page 15 



SAN FRANCISCO 



\y 



// 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




'i 



MINUTES 



DOCi IMFNTS DEPT. 
JAN 2 5 1993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 






DECEMBER 15, 1992 



FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 
President 



J. STANLEY MATTISON 
Vice President 

L. ANDREW JEANPIERRE 

JAMES K. HO 

MARIE K. BROOKS 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 

Director Of Airports 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 







Index 










of the Minutes 










Airports Commission 










December 15, 1992 






CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




RESOLUTION 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 


NUMBER 


PAGE 


A. 




3 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




3 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
November 17, 1992 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



92-0312 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 



1. 


Free Speech Activities 




92-0313 


3-4 
8-16 


2. 


$25-Mi 1 1 i on Supplemental 
Reappropriation Request 




92-0314 


4 


3. 


$630,220 Supplemental 
Appropriation for Access 
Control/Security 




92-0315 


4-5 


4. 


Supplemental Appropriation 
Capital Project Funds 


of 


92-0316 


5 


5. 


Award of Contract 3187 - 
Emergency Pavement Repair 
- 1992-93 




92-0317 


5 


6. 


Limousine Customer Waiting 
Lounge - South Terminal 




92-0318 


5-6 


7. 


Authorize Director to Execute 
Personal Services Contract to 
Provide Airport Issues Advocacy 
in the State Legislature 


92-0319 


6 
16 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

8. Extension of the Lease for Plot 

1H to United 92-0320 6 

9. Professional CAD Conversion 

Services 92-0321 6-7 

10. Reimbursement of Moving Costs for 
Department of Agriculture 

Inspection Station 92-0322 7 

11. Contract 3200 - Budget Increase - 
Emergency Environmental Services 

at Road 18 & Road 9 92-0323 7 

12. Declaration of Emergency - Contract 
3194 - Waste Water Treatment Plant - 

Emergency Water Main Repairs 92-0324 7 

13. Reject All Bids - Contract 3069B - 
Garage Waterproofing Repair - 

Expansion Joint 92-0325 7 

14. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 92-0326 7-8 



G. NEW BUSINESS: 17 

H. CORRESPONDENCE: 17 

I. CLOSED SESSION: 

Pending Litigation: Mill brae/ 

Brisbane, et al v. C&CofSF; Sierra 

Point Associates Two, The Kol 1 

Co. v. C&CofSF; and, Robertson v 

C&CofSF 17 

J. ADJOURNMENT: 17 



Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 15, 1992 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Patrick A. Murphy, President 

J. Stanley Mattison, Vice President 
Marie K. Brooks 

Absent: L. Andrew Jeanpierre 

James K. Ho 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 1992 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 92-0312 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 
Item no. 1 was put over to the end of the calendar. 
1 . Free Speech Acti vi ties 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 3 



Resolution endorsing administrative 
changes regarding color and signage of 
free speech booths, the use of SFIA's 
name during solicitation activities 
and adding a public service 
announcement stating the Airport does 
not endorse solicitation activities. 



Item nos. 2 through 7 were adopted unanimously. 

2. $25 Million Supplemental Reappropriation Request 

No. 92-0314 Supplemental reappropriation of $25 

million from capital project funds to 
be used as advance to City. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance 
explained that this item is the technical appropriation that gives 
rise to the advance of the $25-mi 1 1 ion in annual service payment to 
the City. The Board of Supervisors approved the agreement last week. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if the inclusion of the reserve item is 
also part of the Supervisor's vote or does it have to go back to them 
for release. 

Ms. Gittens said that she did not believe so. 

Commissioner Mattison said that it could be included or amended later 
should the Board need to take additional action to release the funds. 

Ms. Gittens said that it won't require action by the Commission but it 
does have to go to Finance. We will know by then if the Board needs 
to take additional action to release the funds. If so, we will have 
them do that at the same time. 



$630,220 Supplemental Appropriation for Access Control /Securi ty 

No. 92-0315 Supplemental appropriation to fund 

twenty-seven new security related 
positions in the Airport's Operations 
Di vi si on . 

Ms. Gittens explained that this is a $1 . 2-mi 1 1 ion annual item. These 
positions have been funded for the last couple of years by borrowing 
police positions. Now that the examination process for police officer 
will soon be completed the police positions must be freed up. These 
people must have positions of their own in the budget process. 

Commissioner Mattison asked how many of these positions have we been 
staffing. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 4 



Ms. Gittens responded that she believed that all of them have been 
filled. 

Commissioner Murphy understood from the memo that this is a mandatory 
step under FAA security regulations. 



Supplemental Appropriation of Capital Project Funds 

No. 92-0316 Supplemental appropriation of FY1991/92 

interest earned on capital project 
funds, and earthquake and fuel spill 
reimbursements . 

Ms. Gittens explained that this is the Airport's annual supplemental 
appropriation for purposes of undertaking capital projects. The Lease 
and Use Agreement, as well as the Charter require that we go through 
this step. 



5. Award of Contract No. 3187 

Emergency Pavement Repair - 1992-93 

No. 92-0317 Resolution awarding Contract 3187, 

Emergency Pavement Repair - 1992-93 to 
Inter-Coastal, a Joint Venture, in the 
amount of $334,600.00. 

Commissioner Murphy said that he thought that 0'Grady Paving was a 
minority enterprise. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities Operations & 
Maintenance responded that they are a registered minority enterprise 
but not a certified minority enterprise as they are located outside of 
San Francisco. If they were located in San Francisco they would be a 
certified minority as long as their construction company did not 
exceed a certain dollar amount in revenues. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if they exceeded the dollar amount. 

Mr. Bouey responded that some years they do and some years they don't. 



6. Limousine Customer Waiting Lounge - South Terminal 

No. 92-0318 Resolution approving design and cost 

reimbursement for two Limousine 
Waiting Lounges in the South Terminal. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if this is separate from the taxi drivers. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 5 



Ms. Gittens responded that it is. This is inside the terminals. It 
was incorporated as an option to the operating agreement for the 
1 imousine provider. 

Commissioner Mattison asked if this was a waiting lounge for 
pre-booked passengers. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it can be used for pre-booked but it is 
actually designed for walk-up customers to sit and wait while the 
limousine is called. Staff hopes that it will help prevent 
soliciting or at least help control it. 



Item no. 7 was put over to the end of the calendar. 

7. Authorize Director of Airports to Execute a Personal Services Contract 
for the Provision of Airport Issues Advocacy in the State Legislature 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
Item nos. 8 through 14 were adopted unanimously. 

8. Extension of the Lease for Plot 1H to United Air Lines, Inc. 

No. 92-0320 Extend the term of the Lease for Plot 

1H unti 1 December 31 , 1994. 

9. Professional CAD Conversion Services 

No. 92-0321 Resolution authorizing solicitation of 

proposals to update terminal building 
"as-built" drawings and conversion to 
CAD for the Geographical Information 
Systems. 

Commissioner Mattison asked for a status report. 

Mr. Bouey said that this is an on-going effort with regard to the 
Geographic Information System (GIS). Aerial typography was performed 
last year. All of the utility systems on Airport have been digitized 
input into the GIS. We are now ready to put the buildings into the 
system and will begin with the terminals. 

Mr. Bouey said that the purpose of the contract is to verify the 
accuracy of the "as-builts" that are on paper. That information will 
then be converted into Auto CAD 12 and input into the GIS. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 6 



Commissioner Mattison asked if any of the software we are working 
toward will enhace our security monitoring capability or emergency 
response capability in the future. 

Mr. Bouey said that it will. There are several features that can be 
built into the system ... security, fire alarms, hazardous waste, 
etc. He said the Fire Department will be provided with a personal 
computer. That computer will locate the standpipe, the nearest 
entrance to the fire, and the location of hazardous materials, if any. 



10. Reimbursement of Moving Costs for Department of Agriculture 
Inspection Station 

No. 92-0322 



11 . Contract No. 3200 - Budget Increase 

Emergency Environmental Services at Road 18 & Road 9 

No. 92-0323 Resolution approving a budget increase 

from $150,000.00 to $500,000.00 for 
Contract 3200, Emergency Environmental 
Services at Road 18 & Road 9. 



12. Declaration of Emergency Contract No. 3194 

Waste Water Treatment Plant - Emergency Water Main Repairs 

No. 92-0324 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

Commission President in declaring the 
Emergency (Water Main Break at Waste 
Treatment Plant) and authorizing the 
necessary repair. 



13. Reject All Bids - Contract No. 3069B 

Garage Waterproofing Repair - Expansion Joint 

No. 92-0325 Resolution rejecting all bids of 

Contract 3069B, Garage Waterproofing 
Repair, Expansion Joint. 



14. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 92-0326 Resolution, in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 7 



Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



The Commission recessed its meeting at 9:12 AM and reconvened at 9:23 AM. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item no. 1 was adopted unanimously. 

1 . Free Speech Activities 

No. 92-0313 Resolution endorsing administrative 

changes regarding color and signage of 
free speech booths, the use of SFIA's 
name during solicitation activities 
and adding a public service 
announcement stating the Airport does 
not endorse solicitation activities. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director said that at the last meeting the 
Commission directed staff to return with a resolution implementing 
the outlined procedures which were contained in a Director's Report. 
They are contained on page 2 of the resolution, enumerated as numbers 
1 through 5. This resolution faithfully captures the intent of the 
Director's Report and the Commission's desires in this matter. 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. William Suczsk if he wished to address 
the Commission. He directed Mr. Suczek's attention to the 
Commission's three-minute rule. 

Mr. William Suczek, Bhakti vedanta Felowship of San Francisco, said 
that he has been a member of the International Society of Christian 
Consciousness for about 18 years and has participated in free speech 
activities in many airports. He is familiar with the situations in 
different airports and the types of things that take place during 
free speech activities. 

Mr. Suczek said that he wasn't at the last meeting but read some of 
the minutes. He wanted to provide a balance to show that they are 
very concerned about what takes place in free speech booths. He 
beleived that more open commiunication regarding complaints would be 
helpful. Possibly some sort of liaison system would be beneficial. 

Mr. Suczek said that most of the groups working in the Airport booth 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 8 



would like it if the people who caused the complaints were eliminated. 
If a written complaint is received or called in it would be helpful if 
it is brought to someone's attention immediately so it could be dealt 
with. The groups could get together and deal with the situation. 

Mr. Suczek pointed out that not everyone in the booths collect money. 
They also distribute their books. Some of their hardback books would 
retail for $20.00. He said that propagating their literature is part 
of their religion. Everyone receives a book, whether they give a 
donation or not. 

Mr. Suczek said that they want a complaint-free environment at the 
Airport. 

Commissioner Brooks asked Mr. Suczek about the name of his group. 

Mr. Suczek said that A.C. Bhaktiventa Swami was the founder of the 
Hari Krishna movement. 

Commissioner Brooks asked what other airports his group used. 

Mr. Suczek responded that they are in Denver Airport and LAX. They 
have been in Chicago. He said that it is hard to tell exactly every 
airport they are currently in. 

Commissioner Brooks asked why they specifically choose airports. 

Mr. Suczek responded that airports offer a diverse population. They 
meet people who are doctors, lawyers, international business people 
and a wide range of travelers. It is one of the most diverse public 
forums available now. Parks, which used to be considered public 
forums, don't provide a diverse group. They have found that airports 
are excellent places to disseminate their ideas. 

Commissioner Murphy asked about BART stations. 

Mr. Suczek responded that BART stations have been used but the traffic 
flow is different. Other public forums have been exhaustively looked 
at over the years. 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Suczek if he had any objections to the 
proposed resolution. 

Mr. Suczek said that while he thought it was a good idea for people 
to know what the booth is, he felt that announcements have a tendency 
to exacerbate the situation in an airport. Announcements go off on a 
regular basis and an atmosphere can be created where people feel that 
they are not meant to be there. He agreed that a disclaimer is needed 
because they are not part of the Airport. At the same time he feared 
going too far the other way and giving people get the impression that 
occupants of the booth are doing something wrong. Disclaimers can be 
misinterpreted. He felt that could cause more complaints. It has to 
be balanced. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 9 



Mr. Franklin Ward, representing the World Friendship Society, was 
present to respond to a recent article that accused them of 
"bamboozling" Janapese tourists out of their money. He said that 
they don't do that. His organization helps hungry people by 
distributing food. They distributed food on Thanksgiving and they 
are currently raising money to distribute 2,500 food baskets during 
the Christmas holidays. They also help the homeless to get off the 
streets. They also provide the homeless with medical and 
psychological referrals. 

Mr. Ward said that they ask for contributions but if someone chooses 
not to give, that's fine. They are in booths, not walking around 
harrassing people. He said that in the past there have been bad 
people doing bad things in the booths but they are gone now. 

Commissioner Murphy asked how that happened. 

Mr. Ward said that the groups came together and stood against them. 
He said that bad people effect everyone. They prefer to be on their 
best behavior. 

Mr. Ward said that a recent court ruling eliminated activities in 
other airports. They very much want to stay at SFO and continue their 
activities. They don't want to do anything wrong so they watch other 
individuals and groups to make sure that there activities are positive 
and that they do not harrass people or beg for money. 

Commissioner Mattison asked how he determines the appropriate type of 
activity and communication and how are people who man the booth are 
trained. 

Mr. Ward responded that the nature of the organization and what it 
stands for is explained. Trainees are simply asked to state the 
truth about the organization and request donations. He said that 
they have had people in the booth claiming to be raising money for 
orphanages and foster homes. That is not true. They get rid of 
those people as lies defame them all. He said that they have also 
had people collect an airport tax. They get rid of them as well. 

Commissioner Murphy asked how they get rid of those people. 

Mr. Ward responded that their paper and permit are taken and they are 
fired. If they continue to operate, they are arrested. He said that 
they have had several people arrested. 

Commissioner Murphy said that he noticed someone wearing a very 
prominent badge that said "staff" on it. He asked if that was 
someone from his organization. 

Mr. Ward said that it is not. He thought it might have been someone 
from Kojik Outreach. Everyone in his organization must wear a photo 
I.D. 



Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 10 



Commissioner Mattison asked if the people who work in the booths are 
organized in any way at all. Is there some sort of executive council 
that sets standards for behavior in the booth, training, enforcement 
and monitoring. 

Mr. Ward responded that they have airport solicitation rules by which 
solicitors must abide. Mr. Ward said that he has written many of 
them himself and could provide a copy to the Commission if it wished. 

Commissioner Murphy assumed from Mr. Ward's comments that he was not 
opposing the proposal. 

Mr. Ward responded that he was not. His organization does not see 
anything wrong in helping hungry people. 

Commissioner Murphy responded that neither did the Commission. 

Commissioner Mattison agreed. He said that they are dealing with the 
problem of the color of authority. Many people who come to the 
Airport have no way of understanding that this booth doesn't serve 
some official function. The Commission will not tolerate people 
passing themselves off as official representatives of the City or the 
Airport. 

Commissioner Mattison said that the Commission is trying to eliminate 
any potential sense of endorsement. The Commission doesn't know where 
they will take this but will watch it very closely. While there are 
many people who fend for themselves, there are also many people who 
are apt to be taken in by a line that is not credible to the 
Commi ssion. 

Mr. Ward said this month he fired a couple of people and last month 
he fired four people. He said that he doesn't want people who don't 
do the right thing or tell the truth. All the groups stand against 
people like that. One bad person gives everyone a bad name. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if his group handed out brochures. 

Mr. Ward responded that they give out fliers. 

Commissioner Brooks asked if they were registered with the Better 
Business Bureau. 

Mr. Ward responded that he was not sure. He said that they are a 
non-profit, tax-exempt organization. They have a tax I.D. number and 
it is given to anyone who asks for it. Anyone making a donation is 
offered a receipt. Some accept it, some refuse. 

Mr. David Leiberman said that he is an attorney representing Krishna 
organizations all over the country dealing with public places such as 
airports. He said that he was involved in the case that was recently 
decided out of New York in the United States Supreme Court. Over the 
last ten years he has been involved in a number of other airport 
cases around the country. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 11 



Mr. Leiberman said that he represents the Bhaktivedanta Fellowship, a 
Krishna-conscious affiliated organization in San Francisco. Sometimes 
they incorporate under a variation of the main trademark, the 
International Society of Krishna Consciousness. They are 
ecclesiastically affiliated in good standing. He also represents the 
Church of God in Christ. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he is not unfamiliar with SFO lawyers. 
Several years ago, when the booths were first instituted, he was 
involved in negotiations with Mr. Garibaldi. He said that at that 
time a time-motion study was conducted to analyze pedestrian traffic 
flow in various Airport thoroughfares. He had numerous negotiations 
with Mr. Garibaldi regarding the number and location of the booths. 
His clients chose not to pursue that because of the small number of 
Krishna devotees who were actually interested in using the Airport as 
a place to exercise their Constitutional rights at that time. He said 
that the existing facility was adequate. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he has been in contact with Craig McCabe 
throughout this process. He said that his clients have not expressed 
any opposition to the proposal. Many other airports have seen what 
they can do, and, in some cases felt obligated to do something in the 
aftermath of the Supreme Court decision. In California, as noted in 
the resolution, the State Constitution has an equivalent free speech 
clause that has been construed by the California Supreme Court and 
other California Appellate courts to be more encompassing than the 
Federal Constitution. Therefore, not only San Francisco but LAX as 
well have made a decision that a total exclusion would be 
inappropriate under the State Constitution, regardless of the 
decision in Lee, which remains ambiguous and uncertain. 

Commissioner Murphy assumed that if it is determined that solicitation 
is interfering with the business at the Airport than the Airport can 
comply with the dictates of the State Constitution. 

Mr. Leiberman said that that is the test in California. He said that 
California requires that there be an affirmative showing that these 
activities are incompatible. Most of the decisions in California 
have upheld free speech rights in various kinds of public facilities. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if that included facilities that conduct a 
business. 

Mr. Leiberman said yes. He said that Anaheim Convention Center, 
Anaheim Stadium, and the interior lobby area of Lawrence Liverman 
Laboratories were held to be public forums for free speech rights. 
Under Lee there are no restrictions placed on the distribution of 
literature or talking to people. He said that it is his opinion that 
a solicitor at the Airport would have the right to roam and speak to 
people, and hand out literature. The only thing that could be 
restricted to a booth would be the exchange of money. 

Mr. Leiberman added that these were his own personal comments. His 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 12 



clients are satisfied with the present arrangement. They want to 
cooperate. They are not hiding any of their activities. They are 
here today to let the Commission know that they are bona fide 
legitimate activities. He said that it was his understanding that 
the resolution provides an outline but does not fill in the details. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he would make himself available to consult 
with staff. He suggested that signage and announcements must be 
neutral . 

Commissioner Murphy asked why. 

Mr. Leiberman responded that he did not believe that government had 
any right or business to take a stand for or against a subject matter 
or content of speech. Government can regulate but must remain 
neutral . 

Commissioner Murphy asked if this wasn't commercial speech. 

Mr. Leiberman responded that it is not commercial speech. 

Commissioner Murphy argued that they are raising money. 

Mr. Leiberman responded that money has been fully recognized by both 
the State and Federal Courts to be a fully protected form of 
political, charitable, religious expression. He said that he has 
supplied Mr. McCabe with certain authorities. 

Commissioner Murphy asked what about wearing a badge that said staff 
in big letters. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he does not know who that person was or to 
what organization he belonged but he guessed that that would not be 
protected by the First Amendment. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if wearing a picture I.D. that looks 
remarkably like the Airport I.Ds. could be regulated. 

Mr. Leiberman said that it could. He suggested that when the Airport 
makes an announcement or installs a sign it should be neutral. It 
should not be hosti le. 

Commissioner Murphy suggested that hostile would be a sign reading 
"Don't Give." A neutral sign would read "Not Authorized by the 
Airport." That is, in essence, what Mr. Turpen has proposed. 

Commissioner Mattison added that neutral would also mean that the 
public is not obligated to pay money to a person in the booth. He did 
not understand the notion of just saying that this activity is not 
endorsed. It's not really a question of endorsement, it's a question 
of infringement. The Airport is not trying to be hostile to anything 
that is stood for on principle by organizations in the booth or take 
a position one way or another. The Airport is just trying to inform 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 13 



the public that they are not obligated to give money to people in the 
booth. There is a range of neutrality. 

Mr. Leiberman said that that is exactly what he is saying. He has 
seen signs and heard announcements in airports that were hostile and 
could not be interpreted in any way other than to discourage people 
from contributing to an otherwise bona fide or legitimate charitable, 
religious or political organization. He said that without seeing 
something in writing he could not say whether it was on one side of 
the 1 ine or the other. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he was very interested in remaining in contact 

with staff as this process continues so that his clients can voice any 

concerns they may have and work them out. They don't want to get into 
a confrontation. 

Commissioner Mattison said that his advice for the best chance for 
success is for the organizations to aggressively police themselves. 
He said that the Airports efforts are to strip away any color of 
authority. Whenever staff sees something like a badge or something 
that looks like improper communication of authority, the Airport will 
go the other way. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he did not know about the last meeting and had 
short notice of this one. He said that he would like to work with 
staff on I.D. badges, a registration system, policing the Airport and 
creating a liaison. He knew that airports did not like to regulate 
First Amendment activities. Notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court 
opinion, aiprorts have become important forums for the exchange of 
ideas. 

Commissioner Murphy said that defrauding Airport patrons is a concern 
of the Commission. The discussion this morning that indicated that 
that i s going on. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he has not seen any complaints. He would be 
glad to see any complaints on behalf of the organizations he 
represents and he will act on them. 

Commissioner Mattison said that it is really more observation. We 
are dealing with a very large preponderance of the traveling public 
that we will never see again. We will not see the passenger who has 
just gotten off a 15 hour flight or one who is about to board take 
the time to carefully write his or her complaint in English and 
determine where to deliver it. 

Mr. Leiberman said that it just has to be documented. 

Commissioner Murphy said that his point is that the neutrality of 
which he speaks has to be demonstrated on both sides. People wear 
badges that look remarkably like Airport employee badges. They wear 
badges that say staff. He said that he is not a First Amendment 
lawyer but he believes he knows fraud when he sees it. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 14 



Mr. Leiberman said that since everyone has to wear an I.D. badge, 
perhaps the Airport should approve them. 

Commissioner Mattison felt that the existence of the I.D. badge was 
part of the problem. Anything that looks official is part of the 
problem. 

Mr. Leiberman suggested coming up with an I.D. that looks unofficial 
yet identifies the person and organization, not only in an attempt to 
protect against fraud, misrepresentation and harrassment, but so 
donors know that they are giving to a bona fide organization. He was 
certain that these details could be worked out. As for the problems 
of fraud and misrepresentation, there are laws prohibiting these 
activities. He suggested that a couple of prosecutions will get the 
message across. Fraud and misrepresentation are not protected by any 
aspect of the First Amendment. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if his clients would sign a complaint if he 
or she sees these activities going on. 

Mr. Leiberman said that he would recommend that they do so. 

Mr. Reuben Davis said that the first two speakers stated that they do 
not harrass people yet he has them on video tape doing exactly that. 
He said that Commissioners can look at his tape at their convenience. 

Mr. Davis said that the first speaker claimed that he only targets 
doctors, lawyers and professional people. The video tape shows that 
the people targeted are beguiled and bewildered young people who are 
looking for the departure gate and cannot speak English. 

Mr. Davis said Mr. Leiberman mentioned Hyde Park and free speech when 
he spoke to him but he never mentioned London airport and free speech. 
He said that Mr. Leiberman knows that they would all be out within 
minutes of issuing pamphlets or harrassing people. 

Mr. Davis said that he was not against free speech for religious 
purposes but felt that it should be done in the appropriate place ... 
a church not an airport. He said that there are 600 charitable 
organizations in the Bay Area. He asked what would happen if they 
all applied for licenses to solicit at the Airport. 

Mr. Davis said that the Airport has announcements that it does not 
endorse the solicitation of funds, yet, a license is an endorsement. 

Commissioner Mattison said that there is a significant difference 
between endorsing a right to exist versus endorsing the content of 
what the person does with that right. He said that to the extent 
that the Airport is informing the public that they are under no 
obligation to give money to these people and we make it extremely 
clear that it is absolutely independent of the Airport functioning, 
we will have succeeded. The Commission will keep it under review. 
The Commission is not licensing in order to endorse a point of view. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 15 



Mr. Davis asked in how many languages will the announcement be made. 
He said that these people are harrassing passengers. 

Mr. Davis asked what the Airport would do if it received 500 
applications for licenses from charitable organizations. 

Commissioner Mattison said that they will have to respond in much the 
same way they do when 500 van operators decide to apply for access to 
the Airport. He said it is a difficult management issue but is 
confident in staff's ability to respond appropriately. He said that 
since the problem doesn't currently exist he cannot address it 
hypothetical ly. 

Commissioner Murphy said that the Airport will take this a step at a 
time. He believed that the California Constitution is different and 
somewhat more expanded than the Federal Constitution. 

Mr. Davis said that the Airport Police should be instructed to arrest 
those individuals who harrass passengers. 

Commissioner Mattison hoped that staff would go a little further than 
just non-endorsement language and specially address the fact that no 
one is obligated to give money. He suggested giving the Police 
guidelines about keeping an eye out for overt abuses. This would 
help feedback on the monitoring and enforcement process. 



Item No. 7 was adopted unanimously. 

7. Authorize Director of Airports to Execute a Personal Services Contract 
for the Provision of Airport Issues Advocacy in the State Legislature 

No. 92-0319 

Mr. Turpen explained that this item is designed to allow the Airport 
some additional legislative advocacy assistance in Sacramento with 
respect to airport issues. The City has a lobbyist assigned to 
monitor City-wide issues but occasionally there are specialty issues 
that come before the legislature which are airport-only in nature. 
They often deal with land use decisions, noise, airline access, 
terminal restrictions, etc. In that regard, he would like to hire an 
individual or firm that would represent the Airport in those specialty 
cases. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the City had a professional lobbyist. 

Mr. Turpen responded that a member of the Mayor's staff is currently 
assigned to represent the City on legislative matters. 

Commissioner Mattison said that it was fine with him. He said that 
if the City gets back into the full-time professional lobbying 
business this can be revisited. This action is prudent at this point. 

Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 16 



NEW BUSINESS: 

Mr. Turpen introduced Mr. George Teebay who is the FAA Federal Security 
Manager for SFO. He said that Mr. Teebay has done some exceptional work 
in the security area in integrating and coordinating all the efforts of 
the airlines and the Airport to provide a cohesive and effective aviation 
security framework. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The Airports Commission will go into closed session in accordance with 
Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss the following pending 
litigation: (1) Millbrae, Brisbane et al v. Airports Commission; (2) 
Sierra Point Associates Two, The Kol 1 Company v C&CofSF; (3) Robertson 
C&Cof SF . 



J. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:05 AM. 




Jefn Caramatti 

nmission Secretary 



Minutes, December 15, 1992, Page 17